-4 votes

An Attempt at an Unbiased & Libertarian Stance on Abortion

Seeing as us all being individuals with our own beliefs... no one has the right to define "life" as it's a subjective term. Polarizing that with your religious belief or lack of religious belief doesn't change the fact that there are libertarian principles on both sides of the argument (the liberty of the mother versus child in different circumstances) and no conclusive evidence to bring us to one defined "beginning of life".

Example: Science aside, one religion might define life at conception while another might define it at birth. As a libertarian you respect another person enough to not force your subjective beliefs on someone else.

Because of this, we can only use conclusive evidence to determine an "individual". It sounds cold, and I know this because I myself am pro-life in the sense that I wouldn't take the risk of killing an unborn "person" myself if I were pregnant, but at the scientific end regarding a woman's body... until viability... the unborn child is still a part of her as it wouldn't sustain life without her... the mother being a host to the child just as necessary organs are a "mother" of an appendage. An arm or leg wouldn't survive if you inserted an active brain into it and cut it off. Again I know it's cold, but conclusive evidence shows we're possibly just meat and flesh.

As an agnostic, someone that sees only supporting evidence on both sides of the theist/atheist argument of whether or not god exists, and no conclusive evidence in sight, I can only focus on trying to be a good person. This also allows me to be less biased regarding areas of belief.

(Yes, believing there is no god is still a belief with its own faith system. You can be an atheist your entire life, die, and find out there's a heaven... meaning you could find out you were wrong. If you could have been wrong in that situation in the future... then you can be wrong right now. You have faith that there isn't a god because all of your conclusive evidence of what IS proven is in itself your only supporting evidence to that which is not existent.)

In conclusion, my stance is that the most libertarian law regarding abortion would be that it were legal up till viability, even though I myself wouldn't do it if it were me. Your personal belief may disagree with that from either side of the pro-choice/pro-life stance, but as a libertarian, you can't impose your personal subjective beliefs and definitions of a word on others.

What do you think?

(This was originally going to be at the end of another post, but it became longer than the post itself so figured it deserved it's own topic for discussion and reference: http://www.dailypaul.com/262272/which-party-is-closer-to-lib... )




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yes and no

Unfortunately, the supreme court determined that abortion is covered under the constitution. It essentially is covered by freedom of speech (expression). The Supreme Courts position was that the child is a part of the woman's body and therefore her right to do with as she wished. Originally this was the case up until birth, but laws have mitigated that since then.

Against that position the question becomes, "When does life begin (and by extension, protection of said life under the Constitution") That is subjective, unfortunately, because there is no way to know at this time. Personally, I believe once a heart starts beating, to silence it should be a crime. That's simply my personnal belief.

The problem with extending "full protection under the law" to unborn children are the unintended consequences of doing so. Abortion would be murder, obviously. Could a miscarriage, if it could be linked to choices the mother made, be considered manslaughter. Could a mother be charged with child abuse/neglect if the child is born with defects related to the mother's actions. Its a slippery slope of unintended consequences.

Question #1,

when does the fetus develop its own uniqe DNA?

Question #2, if it has its own DNA, how can the fetus then be defined as the woman's body when it has its own uniqe identifier.

Question #3, If a doctor messes up with medication prescribed or a procedure when the woman is pregnant, why is he liable of involuntary manslaughter if the fetus dies as a result, yet the woman can choose to remove the fetus without any punishment without being charged with invol manslaughter?

Question #4, If you claim a woman can choose to have an abortion because it is her body and not a person yet, then, as a result, shouldn't the doctor who prescribes the wrong meds to his pregnant patient killing the fetus be charged with "invol damage to property" and not invol manslaughter?

question #5, If you are on the side of abortion, would you agree to forgo all existing law holding those who may accidentally cause the death of a fetus so that all are equal under the law? (example, a doctor prescribes the wrong medicine to a pregnant woman and the fetus dies as a result, would you hold him liable for invol manslaughter?.)

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

I used to argue the same as

I used to argue the same as you with regard to #2, but there are plenty of examples of other people's DNA in your body. For example, if you have an organ transplant or blood infusion. So just because its not "your" DNA doesn't mean it's not your body.

I don't

agree. People have given their consent to donate their organ, and you are not destroying it, but prolonging the organs life, so that is not even close to what I was talking about. Again, when you get a blood transfusion, the person who donated gave consent, where a fetus cannot. Sure, if I went out and took someones kidney without their permission and replaced it with my own that would certainly be unlawful yes?

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

I get what you're saying.

I get what you're saying. But point #2 as stated doesn't seem correct to me. DNA has nothing to do with it.

Aggression to oneself for personal liberty doesn't violate NAP.

If the fetus isn't viable yet and is still just an appendage made up of a separate organic system reliant on the rest of the body like any other appendage... then there is no "consent" to be had as it is not it's own organism yet... whether it could give consent or not.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Answers

#1+#2: Unique DNA doesn't define the subjective term "life". If your argument is a person is a person as soon as they're unique... then that argument would have to be extended to anything with DNA and would require more criteria to separate humans from most everything else... which again... can't define a purely subjective term.

#3: I agree that this contradiction is ridiculous... even looking at double murder in cases of violence compared to an abortion. The law would extend to that as well. Because there is no way to determine the exact time a fetus is viable, it would need to be assumed that it were. This would dictate that for the sake of enforcing the law, "viability" would be considered the earliest viable fetus recorded in medical history that successfully sustained life.

#4: It's not "property". It would be bodily harm and therefore "assault".

#5: If there were doctors that had been convicted and sentenced of involuntary manslaughter... I would have the case revisited to compare the dates and time of death. If it were under that very short amount of time, I would have them resentenced to finish a sentence for assault if they hadn't already served the maximum.

This brings the question about cases of violence versus involuntary and how they should be revisited, if at all. I would say that the person engaging in violence was taking that risk whether they knew it or not under the current law and shouldn't be revisited. With that, I think any case of violence would be considered involuntary manslaughter regardless of viability... as that's the risk they intentionally took versus the liberty of the mother's pursuit of happiness (having a child)... such as making someone feel like their life were threatened while beating them up and then being shot in self-defense. The choice to take that risk in violence makes the difference.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

The thing about abortion

is it is a difficult topic for most. When it comes to a doctor making a mistake and resulting in a dead fetus, I would not consider that assault because the general definition of assault is "a physical attack." The doctor, not meaning to do harm accidentally harmed the fetus, thus making it not (by definition) an assault.

As for the fetus being the woman's body, I would have to disagree, it is living in (occupying) and off the woman's body, the body being a host. If a woman is to have the right to destroy the fetus, and there is to be no hipocrisy in the law it would make sense that it be covered under property laws. No one else has the right to destroy your property unless you give them consent, and if they do destroy it (malpractice or car accident or even as a result of violence) they can be still held liable. Perhaps calling the fetus property is unsettling for people but that is the only way I can see someone justifying it. Like removing your tonsils, those are your property, but if you go in for a gull-stones, and they remove your tonsils they are held liable.

If people want to have abortions, they will find a way to do so, but imo it should not be paid for with other peoples money. If a particular person is against it, they shouldn't frequent a doctor who refers them or preforms them.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

Duck, Duck, Duck, Goose!

1. You make a valid point. After reading up on the many different forms of "assault" in different countries and how it's defined, I would say that it's chalked up to the same thing as if a doctor misdiagnosed someone and it caused an ill-effect if it were before viability. Suing for malpractice is pretty much the route to go.

2. If the egg is part of the woman's body... how does it stop belonging to the woman when all nutrients going into the growth of that now growing embryo are still from her? The only thing that happens to the egg upon fertilization is a new DNA strand is created... and we already went over how unique DNA doesn't define a subjective term, "life". If I learned how to change one of my organs' DNA, that wouldn't make me two different people with individual rights for each.

3. I have the right to cut off my arm, but that doesn't mean it's property damage if someone else damages my arm.

4. Your last paragraph I (and I hope everyone else here) completely agree with.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally