9 votes

Libertarians and their abortion problem

How selfish are we to draw a line as to when life begins or when it is appropriate to abort a life? Most abortions are done because of burden. It is a burden when the mom or dad are not ready for various reasons. It is a burden when it is not planned. It is a burden when other methods of birth control fail. And yes, it is even a burden when it is a forced insemination.

You call yourselves freedom fighters. You come here to spout all your knowledge about Liberty. Tell me something...is it not Liberty for all? Why is a life in the womb...the most defenseless of all...not entitled to Liberty?

A wise man once said "how can we protect liberty if we can't protect life?"

If libertarians won't defend all life than I want no part of it.




Comment viewing options

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

imo

Libertarians are on the same side of this issue as progressives in my experiences.

Cf. If it feels good.....do it...or ....no foetus can defeat us :(

donvino

I agree with the OP

but I also agree with God, judgement is in God's Hand, not mine. If people want to get an abortion, I cannot stop all abortions or murders or injustice or sin, that is where you give it to God. You do what you can and let the rest slide to the Man above, Satan owns this place it is not gonna be pretty here. Do what you can and keep your marbles together and pray to the Lord for justice. You cannot hold the weight of the world, but you can give it to God, He will be just in His judgement.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

oh and don't forget the Pope shook Obama's hand

and the Bible speaks of having no affiliations with sinners, could make one think a bit.....

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Not a Problem

Libertarians are the only people capable of having a reasonable discussion on abortion.

Is it life? Is it a person?

Is killing it aggression?

Libertarians need to take an honest look at what they think about violence, aggression, personal freedom and the order of these rights and principles.

The conservatives are trying to follow some "rules" so they can see themselves as good little boys and girls. The marxist socialists don't care about individuals or freedom they only care about "society" and social engineering and implementing their current PC utopian fantasy. The rest of america only cares about "me" and having the govt fix their mistakes.

The only sober adults (when we're not partying) are libertarians. And this question is one of the few questions worthy of discussion.

A clever man once said,

"how can we protect liberty if we can't protect life?"

What life? Whose life? All life? Human Life?

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Abortion is the one unresolvable libertarian argument

That's because the answer hinges on the answer to the question "when does life begin", "when does the sanctity of life begin" or whatever similar term you'd like to use. Since there are various and divergent views on that answer--by libertarians and non-libertarians alike--there is no consensus answer that libertarianism provides.

Thus, it is foolish and naive for the topic starter to assume that all libertarians swing one way or the other on this issue, because it's simply untrue. And as far as libertarianism being divided goes, it seems to me that we should just call it what it is... An unresolveable issue.

To let one or a few issues of disagreement among a group that agrees on a multitude other things divide and sap power from such a large group is really, really dumb and unnecessary. We can be smarter than that.

Pro-Life libertarians vs Reason/Cato Pro-Death Libertarians:

The real question for all libertarians is this: which group has followed their libertarian principles and which has made an unjustifiable exception to their libertarian principles?

Pro-Life libertarians vs Reason/Cato Pro-Death libertarians:

Its agreed by both groups that libertarian philosophy embodies the principles of Individual Sovereignty, Individual Rights to Life, Liberty & Property (justly acquired of course), the NonAggression Principle NAP, the right-to-Self Defense (defense force should be in an amount that is reasonable to stop the aggressive force), and going along with all of the above is the principle of you must "Take Responsibility for Your liberties freely taken", or "Take responsibility for your Actions". ---- Those are all libertarian principles that both groups agree on. Now who applies them correctly and who does not, is the question.

Now, because of the above principles found within the libertarian philosophy, I believe that YET AGAIN, libertarians do not fall so easily either on the LEFT or the RIGHT of this abortion issue. It follows from the principles above, particularly "taking responsibility for one's actions", that if one is raped it is therefore against one's will, thus abortion could be an option.

Now this does not satisfy many people who are Pro-Life. But the Pro-Life crowd can and should generally expect the libertarian to be sportive of the Pro-Life position, with several exceptions as the example above shows. Both force & fraud, (rape & incest) would be reasons why one could seek an abortion. And like all other cases, CONTEXT & PROOF matters.

I think that here at the DP and under Ron Paul's book on the subject of Abortion, we fall under the Pro-Life Take Responsibility for your Liberties category.

Meanwhile, the Reason/Cato crowd has yet to derived how and why their Pro-Death position squares with their libertarian principles. I think this is a lazy intellectual hold-over from the early heady days of the libertarian movement coming out of the sixties and into the seventies. Rand had a big influence, but even here, she just made a smart-ass quip, not an argument based on reason, logic, principles and certainly not an argument based on Objectivism. Her quip about "just a bundle of cells" is unfortunate, but its easily argued the other way, that contrary to being "just a bundle of cells", its a very special and specific bundle of cells, its a unique life.

Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

I've seen this question a lot

I've seen this question a lot through the debate: "When is it considered a life?"

I can't answer that myself, and to me, that is where there is probably "some" room for debate on the subject, but I know that if we found a single celled organism on Europa; we'd call it life.

Since that "life" in the womb, even if its only 1 cell and growing, comes inside a human woman, I guess that makes it "human life." In my humble opinion, that makes it worth protecting.

On the other hand I have no problem whatsoever condemning millions of little sperms to death every time I spank my monkey. So... what-a-ya-do?

SteveMT's picture

You hit on a number of questions regarding: What/When is life?

Are a group of living cells called life? -Yes
Are these cells functional human life? -No
Are they "potential" human life? -Yes
Do they function and live independently? -No
Are they on life support similar to someone on a ventilator? -Yes
Are plugs consciously pulled on ventilator patients everyday? -Yes
When is the age of viability outside of the womb? -About 24 weeks
Does a 24-week fetus require total life support for months? -Yes
Are plugs pulled on these premature babies if there is no hope? -Yes
Is a 24-wk fetus or a 40-wk term baby an independent person? -No
At what age does a baby become self-aware? -Variable/maybe never
At what age does a baby acquire a soul? -Variable/unknown/maybe never
Does any of this matter if someone wants to terminate a baby? -No
Does any of this matter if someone does not want to terminate a baby? -No

the soul is God's breath

therefore a human once it is conceived has a soul or God would not have make it live.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

SteveMT's picture

I appreciate your sincerity, but you cannot have it both ways.

According to you, The Almighty carefully places a soul into every human at the moment of conception. Conclusion: Human life is sacred. However, whenever He so chooses, He commands the likes of Moses, Joshua, and Samuel to tell still others to slay thousands of these babies without mercy. Conclusion: Only some human life is sacred. The rest is not and can chopped-up into little tiny pieces without giving a second thought to this carnage.

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but He would not give such orders through intermediaries, IMO. Madmen have given exactly the same orders throughout history, some even claiming to have also been commanded by God to do such horrible things. There is no way to tell the difference between a madman and one receiving sacred messages from God, or is there? These messages should only be for the receivers alone, and not anyone else. God will talk to me if He wants to. He will not talk to you first to tell me later. I won't be able to tell if you are crazy or sincere. He is powerful enough to talk to anyone He wants to directly without intermediaries, like Saul on the road to Damascus. An unborn baby is the most deserving of mercy. Yet, the most merciful being in the universe commands the slaying of the most deserving of mercy. I don't buy this justification for baby slaying, or infanticide either, saying that it was supposedly ordered by God.

Mods. Is there a way to close

Mods. Is there a way to close down the commenting on this thread? Thanks.

SteveMT's picture

Posting a thread is like opening Pandora's Box.

The great majority of people have been very polite, and they have made many excellent comments. I'd say let this keep going. When people are done commenting, it will be an important archive of information when all is said and done.

Like you said to me below:
"I appreciate you challenging me. It's always good to take an in depth look at what we believe. I appreciate a friendly debate especially if there is an opportunity to learn. I also enjoy connecting with thoughtful people."

Thanks for your perspective.

Thanks for your perspective.

My family is being called

My family is being called murderers even though we have never actually killed anyone but a lot of these same people support a "woman's right to choose" to kill her unborn child.

I think some people need a reality check. Perhaps we all could use one. I'm asking everyone here for a truce. The one thing that will kill the Liberty movement is hate.

Love thy neighbor.

Peace.

So?

You called me a baby killer because I said I wouldn't vote for Ken "Ban BJs" Cuccinelli. You're on the internet, toughen up.

Lynn I'm sorry. I really am.

Lynn I'm sorry. I really am.

I think my point though was that some Ron Paul's supporters didn't vote for the Ron Paul guy because he was pro life. Ron Paul himself was pro life.

But I do sincerely apologize.

No apology necessary

But I appreciate it. Cuccinelli's pro-life stance wasn't the reason I wouldn't vote for him (it didn't keep me from voting for Ron Paul). I had other reasons and I was just angry over everyone blaming Sarvis for his loss and it just got ugly. Anyway, it's old news. Moving on...

The abortion issue above all else will prevent a peaceful

end to the thug government now in power. This divides the freedom movement, and will insure it is impotent.

So, as I have for years, will continue to prepare for the inevitability of social violence arising from the bankruptcy of the federal government.

The implications in the title of this thread says it all; "THEIR abortion problem".

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

When legal law diverges from natural law,

you're going to have this justice gap. We are human beings created in a certain way, and when we go against that, certain consequences unfold.

Firstly, there is the spiritual dimension that exists and there is a price that will be paid for these souls. God's wrath doesn't sleep forever, etc.

Secondly, there is a demographic reality of which our globalist megalomaniacs are acutely aware. The future belongs to those who show up for it.

Thirdly, as another commenter posted, there is not as much "choice" in abortion movement as you would be led to believe. Over half of abortions are coerced (it almost happened to me.) Most women don't choose, they decide with a huge helping of fear. (I really loved Michael's recent choose/decide post that helped me clarify some thoughts I was having.)

As a mom of six, I find it interesting how much a statement my brazen display of fertility actually makes with people. Because the eugenicist types propagandize against my lifestyle, it makes me want to live it all the more.

SteveMT's picture

Posted elsewhere, but here works also.

The irony of your words is that you need look no further than the Old Testament for your answer. God killed off men, women, children, babies, pregnant women, and animals. "The sanctity of life" indeed or in this case the lack thereof.

Infanticide, genocide, and homicide. According to the Bible the original mass abortionist was Almighty God, which you will pass off as "they deserved it" and "they had it coming" and "they were evil." These must have been a multitude of Hitlers in the making. God slaughtered these babies as quickly as He did the soldiers and all without mercy.

But you accept these abortions performed by the Almighty without complaint, without question, and without justification. Your reason is God commanded this slaughter. He knows best. It's as simple as that for you when God is involved. Massive abortions done on a global scale and then you use your holier-than-thou attitude with others here when this religion slaughtered the unborn on a scale yet to be equaled. Think about what you are saying here.

Every life God took

He put on the cross, He did not intend for this so He gave His only Son. How many of us could give our son away. God paid for our weakness, He did make us I understand, but He gave us His ultimate sacrifice to pay for sin. Remember that. How I would not want to live seeing my son hanging on a cross being tortured, how none of us would ever want to live after that.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

For people who want to know -

You do make a good point, one that gets frequently mention. The account of the flood notwithstanding, when Moses left Egypt with the liberated Hebrew slaves he was instructed to eradicate entire towns - women, children and even the livestock. Of course, "slaughtered the unborn on a scale yet to be equaled" is a ridiculous hyperbole. But what the Hebrews did do was still pretty gruesome. It could be a question of equilibrium, that these places were socially and morally so rotten and despicable that no denizen living there could possibly ever reform, that they were a hostile threat not just to the Jews but to anyone - as you have already mentioned is the stock rebuttal to your argument - but the real dilemma is not within the hands of Moses or the Hebrews of even God. It was a knowledge of good and evil that human beings wanted from the beginning that causes them to be so destructive to one another. There would be no issue at all concerning abortion if mankind had not decided to make its own moral standards.

SteveMT's picture

"Murder on a scale yet to be equaled" IS accurate, IMO.

"A ridiculous hyperbole" in the total number killed as you correctly point out, but what I want you to consider is this slaughter as a percentage of the total population that existed at that time. The number of people on this planet 2,500-3,000 years ago was far less that the number alive today. Thus, the number of infants and pregnant women would also be far less. As a percentage of the total, more babies and unborn babies were slaughtered back then than ever have been since.

If you still don't accept my reasoning about this, you should at least be as incredulous as I am about this killing having occurring even if only one baby was ever killed in the name of God.

Your other point that I find interesting is this:
"It was a knowledge of good and evil that human beings wanted from the beginning that causes them to be so destructive to one another."

You are right about that, and we haven't gotten beyond that either. We bombed Dresden, napalmed Vietnam, and we nuked Japan twice. The Hebrews did some pretty gruesome things, and we are carrying on that tradition of violence.

You've missed the forest for the trees.

The other point you found interesting was the only point my former comment rested on. Doing something in the name of something else does not place the fault of the doer on the name. The cause of those gruesome things was started by individuals who thought their ideas of morality were superior to those per-existent and could not be stopped by that time in history - what you are saying is in essence the same as calling me a thief and a liar because I bought a taco today with a Federal Reserve Note.

SteveMT's picture

These commands were prefaced by "Thus saith the Lord."

These orders to kill were not given by men who were in a vacuum. Conclusion: These commands were given by the Almighty, no one else. That's how they were interpreted by the Hebrews. Moses, Joshua, Samuel, etc. all spoke this way. "Thus saith the Lord," places the source of the command on God, not men. They would have not listened if they hadn't first said those magic words. Superior morality and killing babies are diametrically opposed to one another. I am not calling you any of the things that you mention.

That's true, and yet -

What you say is true, yet you still failed to see the point. When a prophet is given the words "thus says the Lord", it is a qualifier that they have been given information from a higher perspective than collective understanding. If this information is ever found to be faulty, the prophet would be killed (and often even if they were continually correct when the Hebrews didn't want to hear the truth, as I'm sure you are aware having read so much of the Bible.) But the accusation against God as a "murderer" through this prophetic directive is tantamount to asserting that the American revolutionary war in the colonies was nothing but murder and treason as well. Murder and treason? Yes, it happened, but why?

I can simplify it for you even more. Lets say a tiger is bred in captivity by poachers to protect their camp. The tiger will respond only to their commands and will violently attack and kill anyone who doesn't know them. When the camp is raided by police, the poachers are all killed in a firefight. The tiger is later discovered in a cage, but no one knows the commands to tame it. This tiger will be killed by the authorities.

You are only considering things from the tiger's perspective, not considering any other or broader one. What happened to the tiger was awful, yes. The innocent tiger did not deserve to die - it was merely the product of the actions of others. The same could be said of those innocents killed by the Hebrews. What the issue in perspective boils down to is a refusal to accept a perspective higher than the human moment or any authority over that perspective. This is nothing new, and I respect your individual mind, but it should be considered that this same God sent His only Son to die for all, an innocent Jesus who taught forgiveness and counsel in the wake of the severity seen by the Hebrews. Even if those who claimed to follow Jesus historically have continued to act with severity and violence, it should be remembered that the tyranny we now have within our government is not the result of "American Ideals".

Regardless, I did not say you called me either a thief or a liar. I was actually calling the Federal Reserve those things, and asserting that I am not also a thief and a liar because I had to use one of their Notes to buy a taco this afternoon. Thanks.

As a rule, when a man of God was given the order to kill

it was to kill the whole family. David, one of God's greatest, makes the mistake of being to kind, only to have his son later killed by the people he refused to because he was unsure of their innocence.

When you can know the hearts and future actions of what people will do, even before they are born, I will accept your premise that killing of babies in acceptable.