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.

No...

...just the ones that involve killing human life.

The military comparison if fair. The ant comment is ridiculous.

Ants disagree....

I'm sure the Ants prefer to live as do you. Cherry picking Republicans and Democrats.....

Just did a blog post relating well to this.

http://apatheticnolonger.blogspot.com/2013/12/are-you-pro-li...

Are You Pro-Life? Are you sure?

Do you label yourself pro-life?

The majority of Americans who vote for the guy with an "R" next to his name would probably answer yes to this question, but that's also assuming that "life" only refers to the unborn child.

Conservatives are known for being pro-life in the abortion debate - at least when it comes to the ballot box or the comments section at the bottom of a Yahoo! article. Unfortunately, conservatives have joined alongside their liberal counterparts, relying on the government to point everyone's moral compass to the same direction as their own. The belief that "if we just make a law" will stop the murder of innocent children is as fallacious as believing that the prohibition would stop people from drinking.

(Side note: Yesterday in 1933, the 21st amendment was ratified, repealing the 18th amendment - alcohol prohibition within the United States)

Now don't get me wrong, I am not against creating laws to make abortion illegal. I think the only just laws are the ones that protects a person's life, liberty, and property. Murder just so happens to deprive a person of their life. If the litmus test for a just law is protecting a person's life, liberty, or property, then a law against abortion is a just law.

But do you think you're doing enough to end abortion by voting for it?

Consider this quote from, you guessed it...

"Law reflects the morality of the people. Ultimately, law or no law, it is going to
be up to us as parents, as clergy, and as citizens-in the way we raise our
children, how we interact and talk with our friends and neighbors, and the
good example we give - to bring about changes to our culture toward greater
respect for life."
- Ron Paul

...toward greater respect for life...

This brings me to the actual point of this post and my reason for possibly questioning your pro-life stance. You see, those same Americans that usually vote for the guy with the "R" next to his name, are usually very excited and proud to see the young men and women of this nation march off to another war - to kill. They exalt people like Navy Seal Chris Kyle who is known as the "American Sniper" with over 160 confirmed kills.

"Yay for the people that kill a lot of people - except for the people that kill unborn babies. They're evil."

Do we see a disconnect here? The killing of unborn babies is demonized (which it should be) while the rejoicing of killing people in other countries is celebrated? Oh wait, I know. They are fighting against Americans, so their death is justified -which explains why they believe American's deaths are justified for the sole reason that we are their enemy. Plus, what about the civilians over there that are killed? Maybe we don't exactly rejoice over their deaths, but we sure don't care about them.

Can we see why people think the pro-life labeled groups are hypocrites? Channeling Jeff Foxworthy:

If you are against abortion, but for more war - you might be a hypocrite.

If you are against abortion, but celebrate the troops that are used to kill in offensive, interventionist wars - you might be a hypocrite.

If you are against abortion, but vote for candidates that support endless wars - you might be a hypocrite.

If you are against abortion, but couldn't care less about non-Americans being killed - you might be a hypocrite.

Here's the bottom line:

The pro-life label must mean what it says. Be pro-life. Be for life. Celebrate life. ALL LIFE. Americans or non Americans, black or white, baby or adult. Life is a precious gift from God and should be seen as such. Does the way you live your life reflect your respect for life, or only your ballot?

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. -Thomas Jefferson
www.brianronk.com

I don't understand why people

I don't understand why people are talking about killing innocent people overseas here. I am no hypocrite. I did what Ron Paul asked us to do and I became a delegate all the way down to state. We voted and got our guy in the primaries. I was a part of that. So don't come here and try to call me out.

What?

What?

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. -Thomas Jefferson
www.brianronk.com

Lol. I don't even know

Lol. I don't even know anymore.

question of proper authority

i'm against abortion, but is it just to make it illegal?
can the state force a woman to remain pregnant when she feels no obligation to and doesn't want to? should she be punished by the state because she decides abortion is the best option for her? does the state's purview reach into what we do within our own bodies, of course not.and since only women can get pregnant laws restricting abortion would be aimed directly at women and can the state legislate laws that don't apply equally across the board?

plus, remember: not everyone agrees that natural rights come at conception, some believe just at birth. you aren't free in this country until you are 18. children don't have liberty.

Meh...

Old arguments, old language ....from the liberal left.

Abortion was illegal far longer than it has been legal, which was based upon a lie in court.

Let's reword it.

i'm against abortion, but is it just to make it illegal?
can the state force an unborn individual to death when the female temporary host feels no obligation to and doesn't want to keep the unborn individual alive? should she be awarded by the state because she decides murder is the best option for her not to be burdened with her poor decisions in life? does the state's purview reach into what we do within life we create, of course not, and since only unborn individuals can be murdered by a woman getting pregnant laws restricting abortion would be aimed directly at women killing unborn children and can the state legislate laws that don't apply equally across the board?

the state doesn't force

the state doesn't force anyone to death or rewarding anyone, it just remains neutral. so the unborn's right to life takes away the mothers liberty? the mother must care for the child, and the child has domain over her body and will grow and expand in it even against the mother's will. i dont beleive any one person has that right over another person. a moral right perhaps, but not a legal one.

Old thread, but I thought I would bring it up again,

if anyone wished to comment:

http://www.dailypaul.com/133926/why-consistent-libertarians-...

It deals with the practical matter of enforcing laws which do not have near unanimous consent.

SteveMT's picture

This thread argues a moot issue.

Obamacare is the law of the land, such a disaster that it is, and it has been already upheld by the SCOTUS. Abortions are paid for by our tax dollars and every insurance plan has coverage to obtain an abortion whether you want that coverage or not, whether you are male, female, or transgender, or have previously been sterilized. You are paying for anyone who wants an abortion.

What is the point of arguing "coulda, shoulda, woulda," when this is a done deal starting in just 18 short days. We are in an emotional battle that at the end of the day means absolutely nothing in terms of changing this reality.

jaseed's picture

"Law of the land"...

so we should not try to change it?...Not try to elect people like Justin Amash or Rand Paul who promote pro-life from their bully pulpits like Ron Paul has?

“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”

– Thomas Jefferson

Yeah...how do you feel about

Yeah...how do you feel about our tax dollars going to pay for more murder? We should all be outraged. Abortion is now being forced on all of us.

thoughts on Obamacare, National rallies!!

http://www.dailypaul.com/301170/open-thread-proposition-the-...

We could do the rallies Christmas style. Maybe santa and his elves protesting this would create some local attention if nothing else. Come to think about it, Santa protesting anything this time of year is great PR for advocating any liberty minded issue, especially let's say if there was a multitude of Santas and elves, and activists wearing Christmas colors. Why not try liberty, they try tyranny daily.

kind people rock

while he/she supports the

while he/she supports the military and it's occupation of countries as heroes who deserve adoration. LOL

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

Really? Where did I say that?

Really? Where did I say that? Yes my husband was in the military. That was years ago. I will never dishonor a man who will die for another.

Not a crowd pleasing issue, but here are my questions?

When a woman becomes pregnant does she loose the natural rights to her own body? I know that is weird to think about, but if someone is pregnant does the state now have legal authority over a pregnant woman's body?

I'm not advocating anything here, but I've always wondered if the state says it has legal authority over protecting the womb, then technically that means they are giving themselves authority over a pregnant woman's body, and you know that absolute power thing never seems to ramp itself down. So the question is, does a woman loose the control over her own body from the state if she if pregnant?

kind people rock

your question goes about it backwards

When you purchase a gun, you don't just have the right to kill with it, even though you have a constitutional right to bear a firearm.

When you drink alcohol, you don't have a right to kill someone by driving drunk, even though you legally have a right to drink at a particular age.

When you engage in sex, and the consequence of your action is a pregnancy, a human life that has been created, you don't just have a right to kill.

The Ultimate Liberty is the right to exist. Once a person is conceived a unique individual is created with genetic DNA that nobody else has in the world. Who says what individuals can live and which ones can't, a fundamental right.

I understand what your saying, and

please don't think I am pro abortion as I think the I've altered what credibility I have here because of asking such questions on the DP. My only concern is if the state declares it has the right to protect the womb, it seems in the future it could also give itself more authority over a woman's body with legislation. I would just hate for the state to be able to have the control over someone else's body and the possible regulations it could impose on a pregnant individual and the bad choices it could force pregnant people into. I guess I see absolute power corrupts absolutely. I'm just asking questions and looking at insight, thanks for your comments.

kind people rock

old worn out liberal talking points

Kinda how politicians vote against something before they vote for something.

You said:
"My only concern is if the state declares it has the right to protect the womb, it seems in the future it could also give itself more authority over a woman's body with legislation. I would just hate for the state to be able to have the control over someone else's body"

I'm not sure any state or government says they want to protect a womb, what they want to do is protect the unborn individual. An unborn child is no part of a woman's body, as a matter of fact he/she can be taken from one woman's body to another. A woman's body remains exactly the same wether the baby is brought to term or not, it is an argument that is a compete lie to take the focus off the fact that an individual that is alive with brain waves, heart beating, full DNA within the host is killed by the host.

The one control the woman has over her body is not to have sex, to have sex with multiple protections, or to have sex with no protection and possibly conceive and create a living individual. Once the threshold of conception is reached and an individual is created, the woman along with the man have now created a moral responsibility for themselves, no different than the responsibility to get behind the wheel of a car and drive responsible, to be responsible for others lives in every way.

old worn out liberal talking points, hmm, interesting

You said

"I'm not sure any state or government says they want to protect a womb, what they want to do is protect the unborn individual. An unborn child is no part of a woman's body, as a matter of fact he/she can be taken from one woman's body to another. A woman's body remains exactly the same wether the baby is brought to term or not, it is an argument that is a compete lie to take the focus off the fact that an individual that is alive with brain waves, heart beating, full DNA within the host is killed by the host."

It seems you are saying although the child is physically in the mother's body, the child itself is a free individual regardless of the mother, or did I get that wrong? Makes me think then in order to protect the unborn from harm in the womb, you would have to regulate the mother's eating and drinking habits, to protect life inside the womb, right, that is if your saying, "an unborn child is no part of a woman's body, as a matter of fact he/she can be taken from one woman's body to another."

kind people rock

Yet if a person punches her

Yet if a person punches her in the stomach and her baby dies; that person doesn't get assault or property damage. He gets homicide. This means an unborn baby is "already" considered a human life by the law (rightfully so).

We can't have it both ways when it comes to law. If law is just, it can't be arbitrary. How can it be murder for him, and "choice" for her? How is hiring a doctor to kill an unborn baby any differant than hiring a hit man to kill an adult?

Also the argument that the baby depends on the mother and can't survive on its own outside the womb and is therefore a parasite instead of a human is silly because neither by 4 year old nor my 19 month old can survive without their mother and father... yet clearly we can't "abort" them.

The reason people support abortion as "choice" is because: out of sight, out of mind.

Thanks for your comments.

Thanks for your comments.

kind people rock

The woman's mind doesn't

The woman's mind doesn't really have control over her own body anyway. Her body is going to make a full-term baby of the fetus even if she doesn't will it to happen.

A pregnant woman has already lost control in the sense that that woman's body is going to keep developing that baby no matter what she thinks. If she wants to stop her own body from doing so, she's got to intervene in her own body's response.

If the state intervenes, it is not giving itself authority over the woman's body, which is dutifully producing a full-term baby, but over the willful mind of the woman who does not wish her body to proceed.

In your comment - "If the state intervenes, it is not giving

In your comment - "If the state intervenes, it is not giving itself authority over the woman's body, which is dutifully producing a full-term baby, but over the willful mind of the woman who does not wish her body to proceed."

I'm confused, if the state you say is not intervening in the authority over a woman's body, then how can a human life inside a woman's body be considered nonintervention if the state declares it has the legal authority to protect another life inside someone's own body? The state has to make sure the baby is born from your comments right, so is that not intervening with making sure a baby comes out of the pregnant woman.

Thanks for your respectful comments and your rationality, but it just seems if someone looses ownership over their body for whatever reason such as being pregnant, then that gives the authority to someone else such as the state to protect that baby, or perhaps not. I appreciate your insight and perspective and eager to hear your comments. I'm not advocating anything here, nor am I for killing unborn babies, I have these questions and I never ask them because of the unpopularity of them, but I thought here might be the place for such serious questions. Thanks for not attacking,

Peace, Love, Life, & Liberty

kind people rock

Come As You Are, I see what

Come As You Are,

I see what you're saying (and sorry I didn't respond earlier but when threads get all convoluted, I have trouble seeing which ones are responses to my comments).

I was actually trying out a response further down the thread that I found intriguing. Someone posted about how when we say a woman doesn't want a fetus she's carrying, we're really saying the woman's will, her mind, her willful mind doesn't want the fetus. The poster pointed out that the woman's body is probably fine with it, as her body will keep putting all her reserves toward producing it.

That was a new avenue of thought for me. I'm kind of into the mind-body synergism thing of late. So it kinda struck me.

After thinking about it and thinking about my pregnancies and the children I've boren, it kinda struct me again. It made me wonder about how I define who I am. You know? Am I only the conscious will of what I want? Or am I also the body who will do what it's going to do? For me, it brought up a provocative thought trail to follow.

If the modern pull of thought is about mind/body cohesion, than why -- in this specific of abortion - are we drawing such a dark and broad line in the sand between body and mind?

Looking back at your comment, I think I was coming from a personal morality place. Much less than a government morality place. The poster who got me thinking along these lines, caused me to want to ask women who are considering an abortion to consider that mind/body synergism or split. If your body wants to produce this baby and your mind doesn't, how do you decide for the totality of who you are? That sort of thing...I find it intriguing.

I find it intriguing to consider pulling the plug on this mind-body separation women are supposed to -- I guess, I don't know how we got here -- feel about their total human selves.

I've picketed outside abortion clinics, and I've taken a friend to an abortion clinic. I would never kill a fetus growing in me, and I'd have trouble faulting a woman who ingested the right kind of herbs at the right time because she did. No, that's not true I would fault her. But fault is so easy to come by. I wouldn't condemn her. I can imagine circumstance where I would do the same.

This is a little off topic, maybe. But it springs to my mind and, for me, feels enough similar. I get the creepy feeling when the state -- through board certified doctors -- participates in killing a fetus. I also get a little creepy feeling when the state -- through executioners -- kills a grown man.

I guess I kinda think (how's that for equivocation) that what I judge tolerable for individuals -- a pregnant woman deciding to self-abort or a victim deciding to terminate the life of her victimizer before the police arrive -- is somehow different than what I expect/tolerate from the state. I've gone back and forth on the death penalty, but I keep coming back to the icky feeling that it's not right. For the state to have this power. I keep returning to the feeling that's it's right for me to have this right. You know? If someone was trying to victimize me and I managed to get the upper hand, I could just use it to cut his head off before the police arrive. But...to have the state do that after the fact...that feels creepy.

Likewise with abortion. I'm a mother; I'm into personhood beginning at conception...but, I also think -- no, I know - that were I to be in the position I've witnessed a couple of friends in, I'd look at terminating my own pregnancy. It would be awful, terrible. But to give the state the power to license people to do the job...to invoke the thrust of government...That feels like it goes back to capital punishment.

If I want to do it, I deal with my God and my conscious and the social censure of those who know. If I want the state to allow it and produce folks licensed to do it...well...I'm kind of back to the state executioner. I'm kinda back to that icky feeling.

I wonder if the term "back-alley abortions" isn't subterfuge for a real and, perhaps, un-attended discussion women need to have. It seems to say, "Get butchered or have a baby."

Methinks that sort of dichotomy only came about in the 20th Century. There are ways, and women have been using them for hundreds of years. There are ways that don't require the State to make a decree from on high. And don't require women to subject their personal circumstances and themselves to state sponsored morality.

Sure, they don't always work. But neither does it always work when I claim what I think is my power to chop off the head of my victimizer before the police arrive. There is no perfection to be achieved; there is only debate about whether the state or the individual has to wield the justice sword.

I'm not --in my gut -- for the state sanctioning killing of murderers. I'm not -- in my gut -- for the state sanctioning killing of fetuses/babbies.

This is about what rights we grant the State. To license killing. And what rights we reserve for ourselves.

Like I said, I've escorted a friend to an abortion clinic. (She actually freaked out and didn't carry through when I was with her. Not that I wasn't there for her and wouldn't have stayed to be with her until the end. But she freaked out and wouldn't do it. I cried/congratulated her all the way home. She did it a few weeks later all by herself.) Like I said, I've picketed abortion clinics and I've felt right about doing that. Like I said, I would feel justified in trying to abort personally if my circumstances warranted it from my point of view. I'm just not sure that I should ask society to sanction such personal and morally equivocal decisions by state decree.

But, going back to your original response, I'm just a little fascinated by the mind/body split when it comes to women wanting abortion. Not from a legislative stance so much as how we think about this as women -- who have this life inside of us.

Right? What if were to ask these women? Are you sure you don't want this baby/fetus? Because your body is all primed and ready. Your body is saying YES. The part of you -- your mind -- that does't want this is pretty small and notoriously subject to the vagueness of perceived circumstances. Are you sure the entire of you doesn't want this; the mind/body whole of you doesn't want this?

That was the direction of my post.

I'm frustrated by how little we've achieved in this debate in 30 years. I'm frustrated by my pro-life side arguements -- the blahblah.PERIOD.you're-debauched.PERIOD. I'm frustrated by the pro-choice arguments. Neither side wants abortions. There's a transcendent human side that thinks it's just icky. I'm interested in any little tidbit that leaks toward that. I saw this mind/body idea as another parcel to get us beyond and onto saving lives, no matter how smell. Or especially how small.

it's like the stand your ground law

but only on a smaller scale. Since the unborn child does not have a gun to protect its own life against the host female that might kill it, the law acts as the protector.

So since the state enforces the laws,

a woman's body is partially owned by the state's contract to have her child, and once the child is out of her body, she then regains full ownership of her body, is that how it works?

kind people rock

That's absurd. Laws are

That's absurd. Laws are created to protect your rights not grant them.

I never said they wasn't.

I have no idea what your twisting here.

kind people rock