[tdow]

I find the Libertarian perspective admirable and attractive in some ways. I was curious to know what their take on abortion is (if any) and why. TIA.

--tdow

[justinh]

I think they are pro-choice, as they are on most everything.

[justinh]

Here's a link:
www.issues2000.org/Celeb/ Libertarian_Party_Abortion.htm (http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/ Libertarian_Party_Abortion.htm)

[Ian]

Pro-choice: moral or not, abortion simply is none of the government's business.

[Lone_Gunman]

Murder, rape, and theft really aren't any of the government's business either though, right?

[2nd Amendment]

Obviously not murder, anyway, Lone...

[Zak Smith]

The abortion question reverts to either (1) a religious argument, or (2) the basis of rights and why certain living things have them or not (ie, the functional basis of rights). The former discussion is not interesting, because it is essentially deus ex machina. The latter discussion hasn't been satisfactorily concluded - though I think Rand comes closest.

Could the latter question be debated without it degenerating into a religious flame-war?



-z

[Don Gwinn]

The Libertarian (official) position is that members of the Libertarian party are likely to have widely divergent views of the morality of abortion, and therefore the party will not take such a stand. In the absence of a clear reason to stand with one side of the abortion debate or the other, the Libertarian Party defaults to the position with the least government interference--that would be pro-choice.

Basically, they're more anti-government power than they are pro-abortion, but it works out to pro-choice.

I hope this discussion will stay as civil as it has so far.

[Flying V]

I am sufficiently anti-government-power that I believe the government lacks jurisdiction over a woman's uterus.

-----------------------
"But Marge, it's uterus, not uter-you." -Homer Simpson.

[Lone_Gunman]

Flying V:

Do you also think the government lacks jurisdiction over the same woman's hands?

[Dennis]

Women's Rights and Abortion

We hold that individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women, such as protective labor laws and marriage or divorce laws which deny the full rights of men and women. We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice and private property or to widen tyranny through reverse discrimination.

Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.

We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.

It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements, and/or home births.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/womerigh.html

[tdow]

It seems like the most fundamental function of a government is to protect the well being of its citizens. Liberty, happiness, etc. all come after basic security. This begs the question of whether or not unborn children qualify for this basic protection. If so, then it certainly would be in the government's power to regulate such a thing, even by an extremely minimalist political perspective.

--tdow

[Flying V]

Lone: In the same sense that it lacks jurisdiction over her uterus, yes.

[Lone_Gunman]

Flying V

Could you explain that further, not sure I understand what you mean

[Harold Mayo]

Do you also think the government lacks jurisdiction over the same woman's hands?

The government lacks jurisdiction over any part of any person.

The only reason that the government (treating it as a single malign entity) does anything is that it is the biggest boy on the block and, when push comes to shove, you can't knock it down but it CAN knock you down. The government should stay out of anything other than what was originally defined in the Constitution.

Whether morally right or wrong, abortion is not a choice over which the government should have any influence.

[Dennis]

"The government should stay out of anything other than what was originally defined in the Constitution."

Bingo!

To do otherwise, legally, an amendment would be required. ;)

[Lone_Gunman]

By what power can the government proclaim murder of an adult illegal?

[Finch]

By what power can the government proclaim murder of an adult illegal?

I belive it is called war. ;)

[Zander]

I belive it is called war. So, in your opinion, defense of American citizens is "murder"?!?

What an odd stance...

[Mastrogiacomo]

Wow -- it's typical of a man to want to rule over a woman's body isn't it? :rolleyes: They have a pat answer for everything, I guess that's why the Republican party was created so they could demonstrate how they're more Christian than other Christians and those Christians that don't belive EXACTLY as they do, well, they can't be REAL Christians. REAL Christians believe in women being kept in their place and having no say over how they handle the private decisions regarding their own body....

I suppose if a woman knocked a man up and claimed she had nothing to do it, you raise your kid yourself, it wasn't me, I'm not going to give you a red dime, real women don't use birth control etc. Maybe if men could have their body stretched out for nine months, their life turned upside down, have to drop out school to take care of child all hours of the day -- maybe we'd be allowed to own our body instead of it being the property of the U.S. government. Incidently, if you don't like a party's views -- don't join! It's not like you have a gun to your head...:scrutiny:

[Lone_Gunman]

I believe with the previous post, this thread just hopped on the endangered species list...

[Zander]

It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements, and/or home births. And not the "right" to "terminate" a pregnancy? Does the biological father of an unborn infant have any say in the matter to kill the child he fathered?

Can we continue to accept the wanton murder of an unborn child whether or not our argument is based on "religious persuasion"?

I find it disturbing that the very same folks who would complain about the supposed torture of our mortal enemies would so willingly advocate the torture and murder of a partially-born child, the most innocent of human beings and the most deserving of our protection.

What a huge disconnect...

[tyme]

Yeah, I think so too. The Libertarian position on abortion has been explained. I dunno where this is going, but it's getting awfully warm in here, and I'm already in Texas...

[Mastrogiacomo]

Well Americans do believe in murder. When did you forget that? Everyday we kill people who live lifestyles we don't agree with. If you're a victim of gay bashing -- serves you right for advertising your perverted lifestyle. If you end up dead, you're just a dead faggot. Certainly, not a child of God because "God hates faggots." If your doctor that performs abortions, what'd do? You kill them BECAUSE...life is so precious:rolleyes: "Good Christians" who kill bad, evil people become heros in this society. Governments obviously don't respect women....but that's not something I expect men to understand.

[Zak Smith]

One of the disadvantages of discussing these things on the net is the lack of context. I don't know if Mastrogiacomo is being sarcastic, baiting, or being serious.

In any case, I wanted to address something,

I suppose if a woman knocked a man up and claimed she had nothing to do it, you raise your kid yourself, it wasn't me, I'm not going to give you a red dime, real women don't use birth control etc. Maybe if men could have their body stretched out for nine months, their life turned upside down, have to drop out school to take care of child all hours of the day -- maybe we'd be allowed to own our body instead of it being the property of the U.S. government.


The primary question of the abortion debate should be, "Does a fetus (or a fertilized egg) have the qualities that grant it the full negative rights of personhood?" This is a specific instance of the question, "Does this particular entity have the qualities that grant it the negative rights of personhood?" The thing in question could be a particular rock, tree, slug, dog, human, chimpanzee, dolphin, or alien.

(By "negative rights", I refer to the usual philosophical meaning of the term: a right that can be satisfied without any action on another's part, e.g. the right to not be attacked.)

To decide, you must determine what qualities (functional or otherwise) something must have to be accepted to personhood, and then determine if a fetus has them. If it doesn't, then all other questions about obligations towards it are moot. If it does, then you have to decide if it has any positive rights - it must have them to live, as must small children (e.g. they must be fed).

-z

[Mastrogiacomo]

Well, I'm Catholic. I believe a fetus is a human life at the moment of conception. Not a belief that is universal. However, I also believe in the right not to tell a person that they can or cannot do to their own body, whether we're talking about abortion, sex changes, tattooing, body piercing, etc. I don't have to understand it, I don't have to agree with it, but I also don't have the right to discriminate because of it and infringe on their rights. That's also not a universal belief.

[Rangerover]

Everyday we kill people who live lifestyles we don't agree with
Who is, "We"?

I'm sitting here eating a doughnut and drinking coffee. I haven't killed anyone.

I agree with Tyme...I smell smoke... :scrutiny:

[Imago]

Well, being a woman I felt compelled to horn in on this one. I have to agree with Mr. Smith. Nothing can be settled about the question of who has jurisdiction over abortion untill we have decided on what a fetus is.

I have yet to find a way for every one to agree. This is due to the fact that all the many sides are arguing from completely different view points. That is to say if someone believes in the presence of a soul in all humans while another person believes in the interaction of synapses as defining what a person is than they just aren't going reach an agreement.

So I'd that say that the Libertarian party is right about how to deal with this issue - let each woman make the decision for herself. Not a perfect synthesis but the one with the least infringment of rights possible under the circumstances.

[wQuay]

Ah, what a great reminder of why I own guns. America is filled with "nice people" who are willing to let the atrocity of abortion continue, simply because it's convenient. Some are honest about this; others throw up their hands and dismiss the issue as too prickly and complicated to resolve. They, too, are slaves to convenience, the easy way out, because after all the unborn cannot defend themselves, won't cry out, don't even leave troublesome mass graves and gas chambers to remind society just how civilized it really is. Yes, I must be ready to defend my loved ones, because if I couldn't put a heavy price on putting us to death, most of you wouldn't have to will to even mentally condemn it as wrong.

[Imago]

My point is nicely illustrated here by wQuay.

[Zak Smith]

wQuay,
simply because it's convenient. Some are honest about this; others throw up their hands and dismiss the issue as too prickly and complicated to resolve. Not sure who you're referring to, but I see how it might be Imago and myself. You can rest assured that I do not dismiss the issue as too "prickly and complicated to resolve."

I've posted a framework for how a person can determine the answer to the question, and it works for any moral or religious axiom-set, though they might be surprised what else it implies. In that sense, it's objective.

Abortion discussions nearly always degenerate into religious flame-wars, something we don't need here.

I would humbly suggest that this topic could be discussed by backing up a long ways and debating: "What conditions must be satisfied for any particular living thing to have any rights? Which rights?"

For example, if aliens landed on your front lawn tomorrow, how would you decide if they had the basic "libertarian" negative rights: the right to their bodies, and the fruits of their labor --- or on the other hand, if they were "food" ?

-z

[Preacherman]

I think that this subject is simply too thorny and controversial to be debated adequately on what is, after all, a firearms-related forum. Obviously, each of us has strongly-held opinions and/or beliefs about abortion (most certainly including me!), but this forum is not the proper place to discuss them. Please, let's keep our focus on The High Road, and why we're here.

Closing this thread as terminally off-topic. (Yes, if you will, I'm aborting it!)