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

[Scam of God]

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

[Scam of God]

This libertarian argument does at least provide a rationale for allowing otherwise unallowed abortions in the case of rape and incest that many favor.  A woman who has engaged in voluntary sexual activity can be said to have engaged in a contract that any resulting fetus would be carried to term.  However in the case of rape and incest, no valid contract was entered into because of the lack of consent.

It's a rather cold argument for allowing such abortions but at least it can be logically supported.

That's a rather stupid argument for a pro-life position, because it adopts a variant of Rousseauianism, of all things, to defend an allegedly libertarian point-of-view. Contract law ends when there is no contract signed; to attempt to be vague on this issue is to accept the "social contract", which is anti-libertarianism incarnate.

I am extremely tired of these weasels raping language to justify unsupportable positions.

EDIT: The more I think of it, the more I dislike this line of argumentation. It's part and parcel of what I consider to be "libertarian legalism" - the notion that, to preserve your freedom, we must subordinate that freedom to the method of the law, in this case "contract law". But contract law is hardly fundamental; where it can be used in an oppressive fashion, it ought to be opposed. 

[Scam of God]

This libertarian argument does at least provide a rationale for allowing otherwise unallowed abortions in the case of rape and incest that many favor.  A woman who has engaged in voluntary sexual activity can be said to have engaged in a contract that any resulting fetus would be carried to term.  However in the case of rape and incest, no valid contract was entered into because of the lack of consent.

It's a rather cold argument for allowing such abortions but at least it can be logically supported.

That's a rather stupid argument for a pro-life position, because it adopts a variant of Rousseauianism, of all things, to defend an allegedly libertarian point-of-view. Contract law ends when there is no contract signed; to attempt to be vague on this issue is to accept the "social contract", which is anti-libertarianism incarnate.

The argument I put forth does not rely upon Rousseau but rather Proudhon.  Nor does it address the issue of whether abortion should or should not be available, but rather the narrower issue of whether when abortion is restricted, a justification can be made for having those restrictions be lessened when rape or incest is involved.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Of course it doesn't explain you, Torie! Your political compass always points "true center".