Libertarians and abortion

[Figueira]

I agree with CrabCake.

You make quite the compelling argument. The only Devil's Advocate I have against it is that a fetus will grow to be a full human like you or I, and that some other animals don't reach that level.

It's possible to be okay with abortion, while still being aware that they're potential humans so it's wrong to hurt them without killing them.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Anti-abortion libertarian here to explain myself. (And yes, I think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are better terms than "pro-choice" and "pro-life." Those are ridiculously loaded terms that miss the point.)

But anyway, here's how I see it:

-The government has no right to exert force of any type on a person (they must obey the Non-Aggression Principle)...unless it is to punish and prevent objective crimes, with victims. In general, murder is obviously a crime with a non-consenting party coming to harm (i.e. a victim), so it should obviously be illegal and thus fair game to restrict. In other words, the government's job is to ensure people's rights to life, liberty, and property. This is the key question: when does the fetus become a life?

-Here's my rationale: we have to draw the line somewhere. We currently draw it at birth, but that's rather silly. I don't fundamentally change when I exit my house, and a baby doesn't fundamentally change when they exit the womb. The only logical line to draw is, in my opinion, conception. Anything else is arbitrary, as it's nature doesn't explicitly change at a certain point to automatically make it eligible for unalienable rights when it wasn't before. The rational line to draw is conception, which means that abortion is within the limited jurisdiction of things the government should stop.

-Counter-point: if the fetus is not welcomed, the woman (or a doctor assisting the woman) has the right to use force to evict it. The reasoning is that it's trespassing. To me, this is wrong because the fetus has never consented to enter the womb. Yes, if you're trespassing on another person's property, you deserve to be punished, but if a third party put you in their property without your explicit consent, it's not your fault and you do not deserve punishment.

Should we be compassionate to women with unwanted pregnancies? Of course! We should encourage adoption, day-care, birth control, and comprehensive sex-ed (although preferably have all this be paid for as voluntarily as possible) to limit the need and make the consequences easier to live with.

Let me address some other points real quickly:

Does anybody who claims they think abortion is equivalent to murder actually act in a way that's consistent with that? If abortion is murder, then the people performing it, the people paying for it, the people requesting it, are all parties to murder and should be punished just the same as if they murdered a 30 year old, right? But as far as I can tell, almost nobody "pro-life" actually advocates doing this.

Lots of women have very hard situations, and that's the only thing they can see to do. Maybe no one has ever explained it to them in the way that I just did. Maybe they believe that it's just a blob of tissue, despite science and reason disagreeing (and let's be honest, a lot of people ignore science and reason).

From a legal perspective, maybe they'd be guilty of manslaughter. But I'm a compassionate sort who advocates mercy over justice, and rehabilitation over punishment, so I'd just focus on encouraging alternatives and helping people get through bad situations.

Personally, I'm  against abortion. That is, I could not make a personal choice to abort a baby I helped conceive. On the other hand, it is not the states business to be involved in the decision. Nor is it the states place to fund abortion.

No, that's not how it works, I'm afraid. You're libertarian-pro-abortion (as opposed to liberal-pro-abortion that would disagree with your last sentence).

Saying that you're against it for you but it's okay for other people is like saying your "for gun control" meaning that you don't own guns, or "against gay marriage" meaning that you're straight, or "for lower taxes" meaning that you don't pay taxes.

The issue is about what the government has a right to do. If the fetus is a life, the government has the right and even responsibility to protect that life. If the fetus is a blob of tissue, then I agree that the government has no business whatsoever to get involved (the same stance I take for marijuana, gay marriage, guns, Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, etc.).

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, especially considering that the biggest political influence on me alive today (Ron Paul) has a similar position, but I kind of think this is an issue where you can't have it both ways.

I've never understood why so many Libertarians are willing to make an exception to their anti-government philosophy on this one issue but not say environmental regulation.

I'm quite happy to help the environment, but I also disagree that the government has the right to enforce things on people against their will, even for a good cause, unless it's in response to an objective wrong.

To your first point: Libertarians aren't necessarily "anti-government," we're "minimal government." We, at least minarchists such as myself, think that the government has a purpose: to ensure the rights of life, liberty, and property to it's citizens, and nothing more without the explicit consent of the governed. If I think that a fetus is a life, it is absolutely philosophically consistent to be in favor of making abortion illegal, just as how it would be absolutely philosophically consistent to be pro-abortion if you don't think a fetus is yet a life (based on what I think is a flawed premise, but still 100% consistent).

Thanks for arguing with yourself.  Not that pro-abortion isn't a ridiculously loaded term.  And since when are children or even fetuses property?  That's creepy, but you seem to imply it.  That you frame this as pro-abortion/anti-abortion says a lot.  Pro-choice/anti-abortion is more accurate.  You are either for allowing the choice of abortion or you are against it.  Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.  But it is understandable that anti-abortion advocates don't want to be labeled anti anything...so they call themselves pro-life.

I'm also wondering how the government should have no involvement in gay marriage?  Are you against ssm?  In the real world we live in where government is involved in marriage, it necessarily has to be involved with gay marriage to protect the right of gays to marry. 

I will assume you meant "jist git the gubmint out of it" while implying it should also get out of straight marriage.

If not, you are just another one of those libertarians.  The ones who, for whatever reason, pretend not to be Republicans as if we can't tell.

[Leinad]

Thanks for arguing with yourself.  Not that pro-abortion isn't a ridiculously loaded term.  And since when are children or even fetuses property?  That's creepy, but you seem to imply it.  That you frame this as pro-abortion/anti-abortion says a lot.  Pro-choice/anti-abortion is more accurate.  You are either for allowing the choice of abortion or you are against it.  Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.  But it is understandable that anti-abortion advocates don't want to be labeled anti anything...so they call themselves pro-life.

Earlier in this thread, I realized the error of my ways and changed it to "pro-legal-abortion" and "anti-legal-abortion."

And when did I imply that children or fetuses are property? If I did, I certainly did not mean to. That would be a terrible thing to say and I apologize if it came across that way. What I was trying to say is that we shouldn't allow human life to be ended, and that it makes more sense to put the cutoff for that right at conception, not birth.

I'm also wondering how the government should have no involvement in gay marriage?  Are you against ssm?  In the real world we live in where government is involved in marriage, it necessarily has to be involved with gay marriage to protect the right of gays to marry.  

I will assume you meant "jist git the gubmint out of it" while implying it should also get out of straight marriage.

From a legal standpoint (i.e. what the government is involved in), I see no way whatsoever that gay marriage should not be completely equal to straight marriage.

Also, your implication that getting the government out of things is an ignorant viewpoint startles me.

If not, you are just another one of those libertarians.  The ones who, for whatever reason, pretend not to be Republicans as if we can't tell.

I'm anti-war, pro-drug-legalization, pro-4th-amendment, and pro-1st-amendment. I plan to vote for Gary Johnson this year if Rand Paul doesn't win the primaries. I assure you that I'm an actual libertarian.

[RR1997]

Option 1

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Abortion is murder and an act of aggression. The only line I draw is where I believe life begins at conception. If I was pro-choice, I would still argue that a women does not have the soul right to eradicate the fetus. It would be a two-way system with the man giving consent.

Why should a man's consent be needed to have an abortion in any scenario? Any pro-choice view would recognize a women's bodily autonomy in this case.

Because a man helped conceive the organism within the woman. He holds 50 percent of the decision making in my eyes

Totally agree with the last quote.

[WVdemocrat]

Abortion is murder and an act of aggression. The only line I draw is where I believe life begins at conception. If I was pro-choice, I would still argue that a women does not have the soul right to eradicate the fetus. It would be a two-way system with the man giving consent.

Why should a man's consent be needed to have an abortion in any scenario? Any pro-choice view would recognize a women's bodily autonomy in this case.

Because a man helped conceive the organism within the woman. He holds 50 percent of the decision making in my eyes

Totally agree with the last quote.

He's not the one who has to give birth and carry the fetus for nine months.

[Clark Kent]

As somewhat of a libertarian, I am pro-life, because I believe that the government should be protecting life, liberty, and property, and the child's right to live trumps the mother's right to not be a mother.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Abortion is murder and an act of aggression. The only line I draw is where I believe life begins at conception. If I was pro-choice, I would still argue that a women does not have the soul right to eradicate the fetus. It would be a two-way system with the man giving consent.

Why should a man's consent be needed to have an abortion in any scenario? Any pro-choice view would recognize a women's bodily autonomy in this case.

Because a man helped conceive the organism within the woman. He holds 50 percent of the decision making in my eyes

Totally agree with the last quote.

He's not the one who has to give birth and carry the fetus for nine months.

Maybe JCL and DeadPRez are seahorses?  Them not being human woukd explain an awful lot, IMO.

[tschandler]

As a libertarian myself I am personally pro-life the thought of abortion disgusts me, especially late term abortion.  But at the same time unlike conservatives I do see the need for it in certain situations.  I wouldn't want to have to make that choice, but it should be available in certain circumstances.  But at the same time I disagree with the default liberal stances that it shouldn't be regulated heavily or it should be subsidized.   The general consensus of US abortion case law as it stands post Roe, Webster, and Gonzales to me is a happy medium.  Ideally what I would like to see is actually fairly do-able under that consensus.  Pre-viability there should be abortion on demand.  That will take care of most elective abortion.  Abortion on a viable fetus should only be done to save a mother's life/health exceptions.   And the taxpayer should never have to sanction it with their tax dollars.  That keeps people that morally object to it from subsidizing it as well as as preventing the back alley scenario.  After all, simply making it illegal will simply create black, unregulated, unsafe markets.  That won't change hearts and minds or actually stop people from getting abortions. 

In summation, I don't like it but I don't believe in banning everything I don't like.  Don't ask me to pay for it either. 

[Kingpoleon]

Abortion should be legally okay, but morally and socially frowned upon.