A Libertarian Case For Pro-Choice

[Lightfiend]

EXCERPT: (please read article for complete argument)

In truth, I think the best of both sides bring some rationality to their arguments. For Pro-Lifers, life begins at conception, and that life should be protected like any other. I tend to agree with this notion. As a spiritual person, I do find sanctity in all life. I think life, wherever present, is something worth caring for and protecting. But the question is: who has the authority to be the protector on the issue of pregnancy: the mother or a political majority?

Pro-Lifers are also right to point out that abortion might become a tool of convenience or abuse. If abortion is an easy ticket, this may encourage careless and irresponsible behavior. This is a worthwhile concern. But even those who are Pro-Choice would agree that an abortion is never a good thing. Educational measures should be taken to inform teens and adults in order to keep abortions at a minimum.

The extreme Pro-Life stance that “all abortion is murder” oversimplifies the issue. There are situations where abortion could be the best logical course of action; the most obvious one being when the mother’s own life is in jeopardy.

In the real world, medical problems occur. Today we are fortunate enough to have the technology to identify issues and measure risk before a medical procedure takes place. If a mother knows she has a 90% risk of dying at birth why deny her the option to save her own life? How does that not sound unethical?

What if a mother doesn’t think she is financially or psychologically ready to bear a child? Sure she has the option to put the baby up for adoption, but 9 months of pregnancy doesn’t come without costs. It affects individual’s school work, career, relationships, health, upon other things. If an individual can identify she is pregnant within the first few weeks – might it just make more sense to opt out of the process completely and minimize the pain and suffering?

Because “abortion” encompasses an action that can be committed from a diverse array of viewpoints, intentions, and rationality, it is naive and irresponsible to altogether dismiss of the act. Bureaucrats and politicians gathered in a distant room in Washington D.C. cannot possibly understand the situations facing every mother who considers abortion. Why not then leave that decision to the individuals most personally involved?

 

[xsited1]

And the abortion debate continues...

 

[martybegan]

EXCERPT: (please read article for complete argument)

In truth, I think the best of both sides bring some rationality to their arguments. For Pro-Lifers, life begins at conception, and that life should be protected like any other. I tend to agree with this notion. As a spiritual person, I do find sanctity in all life. I think life, wherever present, is something worth caring for and protecting. But the question is: who has the authority to be the protector on the issue of pregnancy: the mother or a political majority?

Pro-Lifers are also right to point out that abortion might become a tool of convenience or abuse. If abortion is an easy ticket, this may encourage careless and irresponsible behavior. This is a worthwhile concern. But even those who are Pro-Choice would agree that an abortion is never a good thing. Educational measures should be taken to inform teens and adults in order to keep abortions at a minimum.

The extreme Pro-Life stance that “all abortion is murder” oversimplifies the issue. There are situations where abortion could be the best logical course of action; the most obvious one being when the mother’s own life is in jeopardy.

In the real world, medical problems occur. Today we are fortunate enough to have the technology to identify issues and measure risk before a medical procedure takes place. If a mother knows she has a 90% risk of dying at birth why deny her the option to save her own life? How does that not sound unethical?

What if a mother doesn’t think she is financially or psychologically ready to bear a child? Sure she has the option to put the baby up for adoption, but 9 months of pregnancy doesn’t come without costs. It affects individual’s school work, career, relationships, health, upon other things. If an individual can identify she is pregnant within the first few weeks – might it just make more sense to opt out of the process completely and minimize the pain and suffering?

Because “abortion” encompasses an action that can be committed from a diverse array of viewpoints, intentions, and rationality, it is naive and irresponsible to altogether dismiss of the act. Bureaucrats and politicians gathered in a distant room in Washington D.C. cannot possibly understand the situations facing every mother who considers abortion. Why not then leave that decision to the individuals most personally involved?

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

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.

 

[Thunderbird]

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

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

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 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.

Immie

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

OK, you are a statist on this, too. Do you favor an amendment against abortion?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Not really a Government issue in my opinion. While i loathe Abortion and those on the Left who routinely cheerlead for it,i still feel the Government shouldn't be involved with this issue. There should never be any Government funding of killing babies either. You want to kill your baby,than so be it. Just don't demand that all Tax Payers pay for it. So in the end i am reluctantly Pro-Choice.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I also can't support the Government forcing women to have sonograms before going ahead with their Abortions. I understand why they want women to do this and i would actually recommend that women do this before aborting their baby. I just don't think it should become the Law though. Sonograms do give the woman a better idea of what they are actually doing. It is not just a 'thing' they are killing. It is a baby. Look at a sonogram of a baby in a womb even early on in a pregnancy and you can clearly see that the baby already has features and is a person. The Liberal argument on the whole "fetus not being a person" thing really is pretty ridiculous. They should actually be ashamed of themselves for trying to argue that. I have never seen a woman show their sonogram photo and ask everyone to take a look at their "thing" or "fetus." They will ask you to take a look at their baby. So i do like the sonogram idea. It might change a woman's mind on aborting her baby. I just don't feel the Government should force this through Law. Hey,just my opinion anyway.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Libertarian Case Against Abortion

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.

And that is where you will run into stiff opposition. You would need to prove your point on that and that will be hard to do. I also do not see anything that relates to IDLH situations or rape, another point that is very difficult to defend against. Where do those fit into that belief?


As I stated before: all political beliefs tend to support law for the protection of the innocent. As such, I do not believe there is any particular stance that any political ideology supports. This is not a political ideology issue but a moral one.

 

[FA_Q2]

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 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.

Immie

The point was made because he used the phrase anti-choice. I would not call it anti-life either, but calling the other side anti choice is the same thing. If we were to use anti-choice then we should use anti-life. I prefer we stick to pro-life and pro-choice. That does speak to what is supported on both sides anyway.

 

[FA_Q2]

I also can't support the Government forcing women to have sonograms before going ahead with their Abortions. I understand why they want women to do this and i would actually recommend that women do this before aborting their baby. I just don't think it should become the Law though. Sonograms do give the woman a better idea of what they are actually doing. It is not just a 'thing' they are killing. It is a baby. Look at a sonogram of a baby in a womb even early on in a pregnancy and you can clearly see that the baby already has features and is a person. The Liberal argument on the whole "fetus not being a person" thing really is pretty ridiculous. They should actually be ashamed of themselves for trying to argue that. I have never seen a woman show their sonogram photo and ask everyone to take a look at their "thing" or "fetus." They will ask you to take a look at their baby. So i do like the sonogram idea. It might change a woman's mind on aborting her baby. I just don't feel the Government should force this through Law. Hey,just my opinion anyway.

So, would you support abortion without regulation beyond the obvious medical requirement? Would you stand by optional partial birth abortions in the ninth month?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I really do like the Sonogram idea. I think all women should have one before aborting their baby. It really would give them a whole different perspective. I suspect that's why the Liberal Pro-Abortion militants have been vehemently opposed to it. It would likely change many womens' minds on aborting their babies. I have seen many Sonogram photos of babies very early on in pregnancies and it's clear they're anything but just "Things." They are people. The Pro-Abortion nutters know this is true and that's why they don't recommend women have these Sonograms before aborting. Pro-Abortion militants really are sick people. I just can't support making these Sonograms Law but i do recommend them.

 

[FA_Q2]

got that from your firs post and would agree but again...

So, would you support abortion without regulation beyond the obvious medical requirement? Would you stand by optional partial birth abortions in the ninth month?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I also think that each State should decide for themselves whether they want to allow Abortions or not. If Government involvement is necessary then it should only be on a State by State basis. People in Wyoming may not support killing babies while people in California do. Let the individual States decide for themselves. However i'm still Pro-Choice in the end. The Government shouldn't be so involved with this issue and they should never fund Abortion.