A Libertarian case for supporting abortion rights even if you believe that "life

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That hardly matters, because it's still positing a contract where no such contract actually exists. Again, it's a case of libertarian legalism, admitting the utility of coercion to achieve a desired end: "we'll just say you signed a contract when you had sex because.... because!"

Unless an actual contract is signed or verbally assented to, no contract exists. It still seems to me like you're intentionally looking for a way to keep two fundamentally opposing philosophies unified.

If one does not accept the premise then one has to fall back on the definition of "human life" argument, in which case if the fetus is a human life, then the state has every duty and obligation to prevent its death unless necessary to save the life of the mother and if it is not a human life then it has no business being involved in the decision to abort.  In either case, whether rape or incest was involved is irrelevant.

(If you believe that the state has no business in deciding what constitutes a human life and/or protecting human lives then you aren't a libertarian but an anarchist who thinks that at most murder is something to be dealt with in the civil courts [assuming there are any courts whatsoever.])

[Scam of God]

That hardly matters, because it's still positing a contract where no such contract actually exists. Again, it's a case of libertarian legalism, admitting the utility of coercion to achieve a desired end: "we'll just say you signed a contract when you had sex because.... because!"

Unless an actual contract is signed or verbally assented to, no contract exists. It still seems to me like you're intentionally looking for a way to keep two fundamentally opposing philosophies unified.

If one does not accept the premise then one has to fall back on the definition of "human life" argument, in which case if the fetus is a human life, then the state has every duty and obligation to prevent its death unless necessary to save the life of the mother and if it is not a human life then it has no business being involved in the decision to abort.  In either case, whether rape or incest was involved is irrelevant.

Absolutely incorrect. Here though you reveal your true colours: when push comes to shove, you are all too willing to subordinate liberty to the State.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm certainly closer to anarchism than modern "libertarianism", which is an intentional perversion of its origin as a leftist movement after the Revolutions of 1848 to make it more tamable and hence useful to the present establishment. Stirner and Bakunin were far more libertarian than Friedman and his successors.

We will only be effective when we liberate the movement from the Confederate revanchist and corporatist shills who have infiltrated it.

[Torie]

Once more, with feeling: the property rights of the mother far outweigh any imagined property rights of a semi-sentient fetus.

Well once you degrade the status of the fetus, then the debate gets back into more familiar territory.

"Degrade"? You ought instead accuse those who are pro-life of inflating the status of the fetus.

I am not accusing anyone of anything. First you form an opinion of how human fetus is, and when, and then you decide given the former assumption, what rights a fetus has vis a vis the mother, if any. The discussion here was about the provocative idea that even assuming a fetus is every bit as human as the mother, the mother has the right still to abort it because otherwise she is being made a slave by having to carry the fetus against her will, or something. And then it went from there.

[Scam of God]

Once more, with feeling: the property rights of the mother far outweigh any imagined property rights of a semi-sentient fetus.

Well once you degrade the status of the fetus, then the debate gets back into more familiar territory.

"Degrade"? You ought instead accuse those who are pro-life of inflating the status of the fetus.

I am not accusing anyone of anything. First you form an opinion of how human fetus is, and when, and then you decide given the former assumption, what rights a fetus has vis a vis the mother, if any. The discussion here was about the provocative idea that even assuming a fetus is every bit as human as the mother, the mother has the right still to abort it because otherwise she is being made a slave by having to carry the fetus against her will, or something. And then it went from there.

I hardly see how the idea is "provocative". If we assume - as is only natural in a libertarian paradigm - that the mother is sole owner of her body, then even if we grant that a fetus is "fully human" (the vagaries of such a position aside), she is entirely within her rights in aborting it, insofar as the fetus provides nothing for its free ride inside of her body. It's no different from my right to rid myself of any hemorrhoids I might develop.

[Associate Justice PiT]

An unborn child is property. And not all libertarians are pro-life - me, Einzige and Mech for example.

     SPC & myself are also pro-choice libertarians.

Once more, with feeling: the property rights of the mother far outweigh any imagined property rights of a semi-sentient fetus.

Well once you degrade the status of the fetus, then the debate gets back into more familiar territory.

"Degrade"? You ought instead accuse those who are pro-life of inflating the status of the fetus.

I am not accusing anyone of anything. First you form an opinion of how human fetus is, and when, and then you decide given the former assumption, what rights a fetus has vis a vis the mother, if any. The discussion here was about the provocative idea that even assuming a fetus is every bit as human as the mother, the mother has the right still to abort it because otherwise she is being made a slave by having to carry the fetus against her will, or something. And then it went from there.

I hardly see how the idea is "provocative". If we assume - as is only natural in a libertarian paradigm - that the mother is sole owner of her body, then even if we grant that a fetus is "fully human" (the vagaries of such a position aside), she is entirely within her rights in aborting it, insofar as the fetus provides nothing for its free ride inside of her body. It's no different from my right to rid myself of any hemorrhoids I might develop.

     Well hemorrhoids don't have rights, so to do that is more comparable to aborting a fetus that one views to not be subject to natural rights.

[k-onmmunist]

Ah, I knew you were, I didn't know about SPC though.

[Scam of God]

An unborn child is property. And not all libertarians are pro-life - me, Einzige and Mech for example.

     SPC & myself are also pro-choice libertarians.

Once more, with feeling: the property rights of the mother far outweigh any imagined property rights of a semi-sentient fetus.

Well once you degrade the status of the fetus, then the debate gets back into more familiar territory.

"Degrade"? You ought instead accuse those who are pro-life of inflating the status of the fetus.

I am not accusing anyone of anything. First you form an opinion of how human fetus is, and when, and then you decide given the former assumption, what rights a fetus has vis a vis the mother, if any. The discussion here was about the provocative idea that even assuming a fetus is every bit as human as the mother, the mother has the right still to abort it because otherwise she is being made a slave by having to carry the fetus against her will, or something. And then it went from there.

I hardly see how the idea is "provocative". If we assume - as is only natural in a libertarian paradigm - that the mother is sole owner of her body, then even if we grant that a fetus is "fully human" (the vagaries of such a position aside), she is entirely within her rights in aborting it, insofar as the fetus provides nothing for its free ride inside of her body. It's no different from my right to rid myself of any hemorrhoids I might develop.

     Well hemorrhoids don't have rights, so to do that is more comparable to aborting a fetus that one views to not be subject to natural rights.

The entire problem with this debate is, of course, the concept of "natural rights" itself. You've already seen this in the context of a discussion of Israel, but for those who have not:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Beet]

I am making a point about the helpless.  Even in the real world, charities and adoption without "stolen" tax money could not take care of them all, and many would die. One might draw a distinction between the coercion of writing a check to the state, and having to carry a fetus to term, but other than that to me there is no difference. And who would want to adopt a severely handicapped kid with huge attendant expense and time, etc.?  Very few. Heck, it is hard to find homes for a lot of black kids now, or it used to be. They go to orphanages supported by the state.

We are assuming here in this hypothetical discussion that a fetus is every bit as human as an actually born kid.

Huge difference, Torie. One is taking a money slice out of voluntary transactions: if you don't want to be taxed, then don't transact. The other is making a direct physical demand on the individual's body and time. It's like conscription, only more intimate.

That's why the government can't say that Torie, for example, must give his kidney to save the life of some other person. That's far more intrusive than a tax.

[Brandon H]

Viability is defined as the ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb. You are right that it may vary according to circumstance.

But how is that determined? If you remove the fetus early in the pregnancy, he / she (on the proper medical equipment) could survive a few hours or a few days or could possible survive and eventually grow into a health adult. Other than actually checking to see if the fetus could survive, there is no way to actually check viability. You can't say he / she wasn't viable yesterday but is viable today.

---

I would say most libertarians support legalized abortion, but most libertarians are able to work with each other on common ground, rather than make a political enemy out of someone because they disagree on that particular issue.

[Scam of God]

Viability doesn't matter, because the notion that the life of a fetus is inviolate merely because it is human is in error. "Rights" are derived from the competency to possess things - I have a right to my money because I own it, I have a right to my firearm because I own it, etc. Fetuses and infants are completely incapable of owning themselves, because they are entirely dependent upon their parents to survive. In every respect fetuses and infants are the property of their parents, with the mother having naturally a greater degree of ownership than the father.

Again: less "rights", more liberties.

[Torie]

I am making a point about the helpless.  Even in the real world, charities and adoption without "stolen" tax money could not take care of them all, and many would die. One might draw a distinction between the coercion of writing a check to the state, and having to carry a fetus to term, but other than that to me there is no difference. And who would want to adopt a severely handicapped kid with huge attendant expense and time, etc.?  Very few. Heck, it is hard to find homes for a lot of black kids now, or it used to be. They go to orphanages supported by the state.

We are assuming here in this hypothetical discussion that a fetus is every bit as human as an actually born kid.

Huge difference, Torie. One is taking a money slice out of voluntary transactions: if you don't want to be taxed, then don't transact. The other is making a direct physical demand on the individual's body and time. It's like conscription, only more intimate.

That's why the government can't say that Torie, for example, must give his kidney to save the life of some other person. That's far more intrusive than a tax.

It is different, and than the issue is what weight to give to those differences, which is subjective. Both all the examples come under the category of coercion, since a lot of the "voluntary" transactions, like making a living and securing an income, and buying essential stuff to consume, are taxed.

[Scam of God]

I would say most libertarians support legalized abortion, but most libertarians are able to work with each other on common ground, rather than make a political enemy out of someone because they disagree on that particular issue.

Not really. I have reached the point where I believe we must throw down the gauntlet and say, "NO MORE". The more we claim we fight for liberty, the more we cede it on every battlefield.

[Phony Moderate]

If each human being has "rights", where do they come from? If you're an athiest (like me) this is actually quite difficult to answer.

I would argue that "rights" are in fact a religious concept.

[Scam of God]

If each human being has "rights", where do they come from? If you're an athiest (like me) this is actually quite difficult to answer.

I would argue that "rights" are in fact a religious concept.

This is absolutely correct: one can substitute "rights" for "spirit/soul" and a sentence containing the word would mean precisely the same thing.

[Beet]

I am making a point about the helpless.  Even in the real world, charities and adoption without "stolen" tax money could not take care of them all, and many would die. One might draw a distinction between the coercion of writing a check to the state, and having to carry a fetus to term, but other than that to me there is no difference. And who would want to adopt a severely handicapped kid with huge attendant expense and time, etc.?  Very few. Heck, it is hard to find homes for a lot of black kids now, or it used to be. They go to orphanages supported by the state.

We are assuming here in this hypothetical discussion that a fetus is every bit as human as an actually born kid.

Huge difference, Torie. One is taking a money slice out of voluntary transactions: if you don't want to be taxed, then don't transact. The other is making a direct physical demand on the individual's body and time. It's like conscription, only more intimate.

That's why the government can't say that Torie, for example, must give his kidney to save the life of some other person. That's far more intrusive than a tax.

It is different, and than the issue is what weight to give to those differences, which is subjective. Both all the examples come under the category of coercion, since a lot of the "voluntary" transactions, like making a living and securing an income, and buying essential stuff to consume, are taxed.

That's true enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can be reasonably certain about viability during the time period where well more than 9 out of 10 abortions are performed... the first trimester or within one month of it. You can also be reasonably certain at the very end stages of a pregnancy. There is only a window of some weeks where you are unsure. According to this line of reasoning, there would be nothing wrong with testing viability by removing the fetus from the womb.

I am not trying to hold self identified libertarians to some kind of pro choice standard... you can be a libertarian and still be 100% pro life. All I am saying is that the original pro choice argument has a very libertarian genesis, and many people today seem to be forgetting this. Judging by how this thread has progressed, I am partially right.

[Mechaman]

I am making a point about the helpless.  Even in the real world, charities and adoption without "stolen" tax money could not take care of them all, and many would die. One might draw a distinction between the coercion of writing a check to the state, and having to carry a fetus to term, but other than that to me there is no difference. And who would want to adopt a severely handicapped kid with huge attendant expense and time, etc.?  Very few. Heck, it is hard to find homes for a lot of black kids now, or it used to be. They go to orphanages supported by the state.

We are assuming here in this hypothetical discussion that a fetus is every bit as human as an actually born kid.

Huge difference, Torie. One is taking a money slice out of voluntary transactions: if you don't want to be taxed, then don't transact. The other is making a direct physical demand on the individual's body and time. It's like conscription, only more intimate.

That's why the government can't say that Torie, for example, must give his kidney to save the life of some other person. That's far more intrusive than a tax.

It is different, and than the issue is what weight to give to those differences, which is subjective. Both all the examples come under the category of coercion, since a lot of the "voluntary" transactions, like making a living and securing an income, and buying essential stuff to consume, are taxed.

That's true enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can be reasonably certain about viability during the time period where well more than 9 out of 10 abortions are performed... the first trimester or within one month of it. You can also be reasonably certain at the very end stages of a pregnancy. There is only a window of some weeks where you are unsure. According to this line of reasoning, there would be nothing wrong with testing viability by removing the fetus from the womb.

I am not trying to hold self identified libertarians to some kind of pro choice standard... you can be a libertarian and still be 100% pro life. All I am saying is that the original pro choice argument has a very libertarian genesis, and many people today seem to be forgetting this. Judging by how this thread has progressed, I am partially right.

Exactly.
The abortion debate wouldn't be such a big deal if prolife "libertarians" wouldn't make such a big deal out of their way being the only "libertarian" way. That is why I (and others) are calling them out on this.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I am pro-choice, but I find these "libertarian" arguments for it more despicable than any pro-life argument. Especially this:

An unborn child is property. And not all libertarians are pro-life - me, Einzige and Mech for example.

That's not quite so bad if you don't view a fetus as an "unborn child" (as I don't), but if you actually think that's a full human being and believe in this sort of thing...that's just another horrifying thing about libertarianism.

[Scam of God]

I am pro-choice, but I find these "libertarian" arguments for it more despicable than any pro-life argument. Especially this:

An unborn child is property. And not all libertarians are pro-life - me, Einzige and Mech for example.

That's not quite so bad if you don't view a fetus as an "unborn child" (as I don't), but if you actually think that's a full human being and believe in this sort of thing...that's just another horrifying thing about libertarianism.

A fetus isn't a full human being, but it would hardly matter if it were.

[k-onmmunist]

I am pro-choice, but I find these "libertarian" arguments for it more despicable than any pro-life argument. Especially this:

An unborn child is property. And not all libertarians are pro-life - me, Einzige and Mech for example.

That's not quite so bad if you don't view a fetus as an "unborn child" (as I don't), but if you actually think that's a full human being and believe in this sort of thing...that's just another horrifying thing about libertarianism.

Bad wording perhaps. But no, a fetus is property of it's mother as long as it remains inside her.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I am pro-choice, but I find these "libertarian" arguments for it more despicable than any pro-life argument. Especially this:

An unborn child is property. And not all libertarians are pro-life - me, Einzige and Mech for example.

That's not quite so bad if you don't view a fetus as an "unborn child" (as I don't), but if you actually think that's a full human being and believe in this sort of thing...that's just another horrifying thing about libertarianism.

A fetus isn't a full human being, but it would hardly matter if it were.

See, I agree with the first part but not the latter.

[Brandon H]

You can be reasonably certain about viability during the time period where well more than 9 out of 10 abortions are performed... the first trimester or within one month of it. You can also be reasonably certain at the very end stages of a pregnancy. There is only a window of some weeks where you are unsure. According to this line of reasoning, there would be nothing wrong with testing viability by removing the fetus from the womb.

So if there is nothing wrong with it, why not do exactly that instead of intentionally killing the child with the previously mentioned (page 1 of this thread) methods? If the child can be removed and it may or may not result in death, what justifies the intentional killing?

[Scam of God]

You can be reasonably certain about viability during the time period where well more than 9 out of 10 abortions are performed... the first trimester or within one month of it. You can also be reasonably certain at the very end stages of a pregnancy. There is only a window of some weeks where you are unsure. According to this line of reasoning, there would be nothing wrong with testing viability by removing the fetus from the womb.

So if there is nothing wrong with it, why not do exactly that instead of intentionally killing the child with the previously mentioned (page 1 of this thread) methods? If the child can be removed and it may or may not result in death, what justifies the intentional killing?

The fact that it's the property of the mother, and property can be disposed of however the possessor wishes.

[Torie]

You can be reasonably certain about viability during the time period where well more than 9 out of 10 abortions are performed... the first trimester or within one month of it. You can also be reasonably certain at the very end stages of a pregnancy. There is only a window of some weeks where you are unsure. According to this line of reasoning, there would be nothing wrong with testing viability by removing the fetus from the womb.

So if there is nothing wrong with it, why not do exactly that instead of intentionally killing the child with the previously mentioned (page 1 of this thread) methods? If the child can be removed and it may or may not result in death, what justifies the intentional killing?

The fact that it's the property of the mother, and property can be disposed of however the possessor wishes.

In other words, a fetus = a slave. I don't think this line of argument will persuade many folks E, other than perhaps yourself.

[Scam of God]

You can be reasonably certain about viability during the time period where well more than 9 out of 10 abortions are performed... the first trimester or within one month of it. You can also be reasonably certain at the very end stages of a pregnancy. There is only a window of some weeks where you are unsure. According to this line of reasoning, there would be nothing wrong with testing viability by removing the fetus from the womb.

So if there is nothing wrong with it, why not do exactly that instead of intentionally killing the child with the previously mentioned (page 1 of this thread) methods? If the child can be removed and it may or may not result in death, what justifies the intentional killing?

The fact that it's the property of the mother, and property can be disposed of however the possessor wishes.

In other words, a fetus = a slave. I don't think this line of argument will persuade many folks E, other than perhaps yourself.

A fetus is less useful than a slave, as a slave is fully sentient and can own property.

I don't expect it to "persuade" anyone who's pro-life, as most pro-lifers are cowards afraid to admit their own mortality.

[Torie]

You can be reasonably certain about viability during the time period where well more than 9 out of 10 abortions are performed... the first trimester or within one month of it. You can also be reasonably certain at the very end stages of a pregnancy. There is only a window of some weeks where you are unsure. According to this line of reasoning, there would be nothing wrong with testing viability by removing the fetus from the womb.

So if there is nothing wrong with it, why not do exactly that instead of intentionally killing the child with the previously mentioned (page 1 of this thread) methods? If the child can be removed and it may or may not result in death, what justifies the intentional killing?

The fact that it's the property of the mother, and property can be disposed of however the possessor wishes.

In other words, a fetus = a slave. I don't think this line of argument will persuade many folks E, other than perhaps yourself.

A fetus is less useful than a slave, as a slave is fully sentient and can own property.

I don't expect it to "persuade" anyone who's pro-life, as most pro-lifers are cowards afraid to admit their own mortality.

Well it doesn't persuade me, although I am not sure how folks want to label me. I am not sure what admitting your own mortality is about, but I assume it is something about fear of death, and I still don't see the nexus of that with abortion.