• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A Libertarian's argument against abortion

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The official position of the Libertarian Party on abortion is neutral, saying that government should stay out of abortion rights while people should not be forced to pay taxes for government-funded abortions if they believe it is murder. For the most part, they will use the classical arguments that the Democrats use of being "personally pro-life." Now, this is not an attack on Democrats, because I also maintain that Republican politicians are only pro-life because it gains them votes and are willing to let abortion go on as long as there are votes to be had for talking about it. I on the other hand think that you truly have to be pro-life, and that means opposition to abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, illegal war, and any form of government sanctioned or administered killing. My libertarian argument for the pro-life position stems from the three highest rights that Thomas Paine enshrined. These are the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. My belief is that these rights are sacred, far more sacred than a right to terminate a pregnancy. I also hold by destroying life, you are taking away the ability for that person to someday enjoy liberty and pursue their pleasures. The simple facts are that when you compromise one of those rights in the least, the other two are useless. Now, you may say that by taking away abortion rights I am taking away liberty and pursuit of happiness. Now, one of the key arguments of libertarianism is that you should have a right to do whatever you want as long as that does not compromise the rights or freedoms of another individual. I feel that you should be able to do whatever you want. I think you should be able to get married even if you are gay, smoke pot, own an assault weapon responsibly, watch what you want on television, listen to the kind of music you want, look at porn if you feel like it, and read or say whatever is on your mind, why? Because those are all free things, and sure, some people may not like it that somebody would watch something on TV, choose a homosexual relationship, smoke pot, own a gun, or do any of that stuff because it violates their moral standards, but they should never be able to do anything about anyone doing that as long as it is not hurting them, which despite all their arguments about the "breakdown of morality" it is not. Abortion is different on the other hand, it is the supposed rights of one person compromising the rights of another. If "rights" ever compromise anybody else's rights, then they are not rights. Abortion is not a right or a freedom because it trades one person's rights for another, all those other things, regardless of whether you think they are okay, do not compromise your rights so they should be allowed even if you disagree with them. Abortion is different, much different. You can talk about body freedom, but in the end, what about the body of the child?
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Points for some...misguided in others.
1) Read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, then read the hundreds of other posts here. NOWHERE do they 'guarantee' life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to anyone but men as worded.
2) Nowhere in the Constitution are rights given to embryos or fetuses. Laws that include the death of these in assaults or murders make the presumption that the pregnancy was welcomed and that the fetus would have been viable had it not been harmed. Even then, state laws vary; where someone may be charged in an unlawful death of a fetus in one state, may not be included in charges in another.
3) Rights are not compromised or dismissed as they are not there to begin with.
4)'Child' is a stage, such as you are in now. You are not an adult yet. You were once a baby. Had your mother not been able to carry you for whatever reason and chose abortion as her option, she would not have aborted neither a child nor an adult-it would have been, in all likelihood, in the embryonic stage. Does this make it not a death? No, but it makes it within her rights to do so.
"Pro-life Libertarian" is a misnomer on your part. You are either for free will and the right to choose how one conducts one's life or you aren't.
Put another way: Do you live on your own? Make your own way? Make your own rules? Someone speaks for you, supports you, pays for your schooling, clothes, food, etc. You have limited rights as a child. You had no rights as an embryo. You will have more rights as an adult. Your parents, on the other hand, have all the rights accorded them as per the country's laws. Once they made the decision to have you, they took the responsibility as parents to exercise their parental rights. But first, they had to make that decision and they exercised their rights to do so.
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ngdawg said:
Points for some...misguided in others.
1) Read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, then read the hundreds of other posts here. NOWHERE do they 'guarantee' life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to anyone but men as worded.
2) Nowhere in the Constitution are rights given to embryos or fetuses. Laws that include the death of these in assaults or murders make the presumption that the pregnancy was welcomed and that the fetus would have been viable had it not been harmed. Even then, state laws vary; where someone may be charged in an unlawful death of a fetus in one state, may not be included in charges in another.
3) Rights are not compromised or dismissed as they are not there to begin with.
4)'Child' is a stage, such as you are in now. You are not an adult yet. You were once a baby. Had your mother not been able to carry you for whatever reason and chose abortion as her option, she would not have aborted neither a child nor an adult-it would have been, in all likelihood, in the embryonic stage. Does this make it not a death? No, but it makes it within her rights to do so.
"Pro-life Libertarian" is a misnomer on your part. You are either for free will and the right to choose how one conducts one's life or you aren't.
Put another way: Do you live on your own? Make your own way? Make your own rules? Someone speaks for you, supports you, pays for your schooling, clothes, food, etc. You have limited rights as a child. You had no rights as an embryo. You will have more rights as an adult. Your parents, on the other hand, have all the rights accorded them as per the country's laws. Once they made the decision to have you, they took the responsibility as parents to exercise their parental rights. But first, they had to make that decision and they exercised their rights to do so.
There are certain authorities nobody should have, and taking life is one of them. I'm telling you, every American has equal rights to those basic things. If you want to see a fetus has no rights, then why not extend that to minorities? I'll tell you why, because the left's favorite sport is to trade in rights they don't like for rights they do like.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Axismaster said:
There are certain authorities nobody should have, and taking life is one of them. I'm telling you, every American has equal rights to those basic things. If you want to see a fetus has no rights, then why not extend that to minorities? I'll tell you why, because the left's favorite sport is to trade in rights they don't like for rights they do like.
Ridiculous statement and comparison.

Minorities= walking, breathing, voting, taxpaying, learning, working, buying people.
Fetuses and embryos: uh...none of the above. They're not even Americans until they come out screaming in America. They can have illegal immigrant parents or American-born, but until they're out, they're not American.

Don't blame things on left or right. Like using Hitler, it's a cop out.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
So the "liberty" of a bunch of cells is more important than the liberty of the woman carrying it?
 

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Axismaster wrote: "Abortion is different on the other hand, it is the supposed rights of one person compromising the rights of another."

ONLY if the unborn human qualifies as a person, does that statement have any chance of being valid. Where is the evidence to support the hidden assumption you are making?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
But we know that most prolifers WON'T agree, because they then lose control over women and don't get to impsoe their religious views on others. So you won't get prolifers to sign on to that.
 

Vandeervecken

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
744
Reaction score
1
Location
Midland MI USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Axismaster said:
There are certain authorities nobody should have, and taking life is one of them. I'm telling you, every American has equal rights to those basic things. If you want to see a fetus has no rights, then why not extend that to minorities? I'll tell you why, because the left's favorite sport is to trade in rights they don't like for rights they do like.

Your problem being that minorities rights are spelled out in the Constitution. As is the fact rights accrue at birth. (See amendment 14).

So your point is devoid of fact.
 

Vandeervecken

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
744
Reaction score
1
Location
Midland MI USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
galenrox said:
yeah, but then wouldn't then your stance just come down to when you think life begins?

I think another interesting point would be that citizenship begins at birth, and so these rights could be interpreted as not applying until birth, unless we instead percieve them to actually be inalianable rights, thus applying to all living people (and thus if you believe that a fetus is a living person you could reasonably feel that those rights would apply to the fetus)

Just tossing those ideas out there.
Even if you would, still their right to live cannot trump the life of the mother and her right to not become a mobile incubation system for the state.
 

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
galenrox wrote: "doesn't one's right to life trump one's right to privacy in most situations?"

That word "one" is the key. It is a substitute for "a person". We grant right-to-life to persons; they can understand what they are being granted. We don't grant right-to-life to ordinary animals; they cannot understand such a grant. Since unborn humans are measurably of only animal mentality, they cannot understand right-to-life, and so there is no need to grant it to them.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Technically, not one person on the planet has a 'right to life'. Life is given to them through birth. Now, once it is given, no one has the legal or moral right to take it away. What rights are given are matters of law. What areas where it's ok to end life are outlined as matters of law(regardless of one's personal moral stance on those laws). Nature takes care of the rest.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I have no comment on this issue.
 

Vandeervecken

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
744
Reaction score
1
Location
Midland MI USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
galenrox said:
But now we have to weigh which right trumps which. .
The mother, being post birth is recognized by the 14th Amendment as having rights. The fetus being pre-birth does not. Makes it rather obvious does it not? You might also note that slavery is banned by the Constitution except upon felony conviction, unless you plan an making it illegal to have an unwanted pregnancy, quickly arresting trying and convicting the mother, the fetus has no right to enslave the mother to provide life support.

galenrox said:
The right to an abortion is held up in this nation by the right to privacy, but in most situations doesn't one's right to life trump one's right to privacy in most situations? Like if you know someones gonna get killed in a house, you can go in without a warrant, right?.
Better not have me on the jury if you do without warrant, permission, or in hot pursuit.

galenrox said:
But on the other hand, in certain situations it's far more gray than that example, i.e. wire taps and so on and so forth, which are supposed to be done in the name of protecting our right to life, are, in my opinion, clearly wrong and I feel our right to privacy trumps the right to life there.
I think abortion would fall into one of those gray areas in this situation.
The taps clearly violate the 4th amendment. Neither the congress, nor the president, nor the two working in concert can simply decide to ignore the 4th amendment.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Vandeervecken
And yet, this doesn't stop you from posting one anyway. . .
OK, I have a comment. A fetus is not life. It has no ability to sustain itself. That's not life.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Vandeervecken said:
You might also note that slavery is banned by the Constitution except upon felony conviction, unless you plan an making it illegal to have an unwanted pregnancy, quickly arresting trying and convicting the mother, the fetus has no right to enslave the mother to provide life support.
Don't give them ideas.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think that it should be up to the mother. If a woman is not ready to have a kid than she's not. The state shouldn't take away her right to choose wheither the time is right.
 

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
galenrox quoted: "Since unborn humans are measurably of only animal mentality, they cannot understand right-to-life, and so there is no need to grant it to them."

--and wrote: "But under those circumstances, wouldn't retarded people who did not understand the right to life also not qualify?"

LOGICALLY, yes. I do think, though, that only the severely retarded would be in that category (a tiny percentage of the population). Severely retarded humans are literally unable to care for themselves, and typically require greater caregiving effort than is normally offered to pets. Parents who have this category of offspring (more severe than "Downs Syndrome", and lacking the visual signs of that disorder) don't usually discover the magnitude of the situation until a year or two after birth, and will need to support them for life (could be 90 years!). HOWEVER, do keep in mind that the lack of a right-to-life is NOT the same thing as an automatic death penalty. The parents can just put the child up for adoption by pro-lifers, right?
 

Windy

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
226
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I agree to the killing of all offspring of all those who agree with abortion..
They should'nt have children anyway..
 

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Windy wrote: "I agree to the killing of all offspring of all those who agree with abortion.. They should'nt have children anyway.."

Ah, another anti-CHOICE person.... Those opposed to the choices others make seem to think that their opposition won't backfire, and lead to restrictions of their OWN choices....
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
galenrox said:
Alright, now that's just outright proposterous. We were having an actual conversation about abortion, and you've gotta come along and drop one of the "pro-choice people are baby-killers" and fould up the whole conversation. It's anti-social crap like that that has caused the current impasse in the debate, even though both sides can admit that without some sort of compramise or agreement with the other side whatever happens will fail.
You can use the word 'stupid' here, Galenrox...no need to be PC ;)
It's another fallacy because no one 'agrees with abortion'-it's the right for women to decide how their bodies are utilized that's the bottom line. (I know there are about 2-3 who perpetuate the 'clump of cells' arguments, but I find them rather irrelevant, really when weighed against choice) Unfortunately, Windy's mother is or was against that right....there's the result:mrgreen:
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
galenrox said:
yeah, I concur, but I unfortunately can't use the word "stupid", I'm a moderator now!
I can!

Windy, you're a dumbarse - do the world a favour and go jump in front of a truck.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
galenrox said:
Alright, now that's just outright proposterous. We were having an actual conversation about abortion, and you've gotta come along and drop one of the "pro-choice people are baby-killers" and fould up the whole conversation. It's anti-social crap like that that has caused the current impasse in the debate, even though both sides can admit that without some sort of compramise or agreement with the other side whatever happens will fail.
How about a REAL debate regarding the use of abortions. We never see a compromise on having it legal or illegal. There is no common ground in that area at all.

but there IS a way of reaching compromise i the area of preventing unwanted pregnancies to begin with (sex-ed, contraception), or to make the pregnancy wanted instead (better support for the woman/family).

That kind of discussion would be vastly more useful than the yes/no debate on the right/legality of abortions, a "debate" that has gone on for 30+ years with no significant changes.

If instead we reduced the number of abortions through the above suggested means, we could end up with MUCH lower abortion rates. Now, is it only my impression that some on the pro-life object to this per it removing some of the fund-raising issues?

It certainly conflicts somewhat with the more right-wing views on contraception and sex-ed, and the idea that women are welfare queens, but can this be resolved?

That would be the REAL discussion, the meaningful one.

Who is game?
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
galenrox said:
yeah, I concur, but I unfortunately can't use the word "stupid", I'm a moderator now!
Oops! When did that happen? Congrats! Or should I be wishing you lots of luck?:mrgreen:
 

Gaivs Ivlivs

Banned
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
FutureIncoming said:
ONLY if the unborn human qualifies as a person, does that statement have any chance of being valid.
And therein lies the answer to the Abortion question. People can sit around and discuss the philosophy/constitutionality of abortion all day long but in the end its rather stupid. It all boils down to "is a fetus person or property?" If it is a person it is accorded the rights due to every human, namly the right to life. If it is property, the woman is entitled to the right of privacy and the freedom to do with her property as she wishes. It really depends on when you beleive that life begins.
 
Top Bottom