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.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Conscriptionists and their liberty problem

Every fetus is a symbiont only if "every sperm is sacred". And if no one is ever raped, frail, or otherwise unwilling to put her life on the line for an unwelcome internal parasitic invader.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
to be continued

Why is it that Hollywood

Why is it that Hollywood liberals are so he'll bent on abortion rights? Do you not think there is an agenda? I urge you all to look into this. Just do it.

I asked my 15 year old son what his views were on abortion. He said he thought it was the woman's right to choose. How does a 15 year old boy pick up such a coined phrase. You cannot ignore that there is an agenda here.

Yes but....

Unknown, my 23 year old daughter agrees with me that it's a woman's personal issue to choose or not to choose. There are many agendas. One such agenda is to limit freedom to make choices. Personally I'd prefer to focus on limiting the government, not the people.

The government is meant to

The government is meant to protect rights not grant them. And why would an unborn child not be granted the same right to life as one who takes their first breath outside the whom?


Not sure Unknown. I personally have other concerns as it doesn't apply directly to me.

But advocating against the

But advocating against the droning of others pertains to you? Sounds like cherry picking to me.

Don't assume.....

Correction Unknown. I'm a combat vet. Walk in my shoes before you judge. Drones and other devices have pertained to me. I'm not married to a vet. , I am one.

For those who fought for it. Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.

Point is that you advocate

Point is that you advocate against one killing but not the other.

SteveMT's picture

Government should be kept out of the matter of abortion.

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Morality is not "legislatable."

But laws should be made to

But laws should be made to protect life. That is why it is illegal to murder someone. So why is abortion legal? Is it not murder?

SteveMT's picture

Have laws against murder stopped murderers from killing?

Have laws against drunk driving stopped people from driving drunk?
Have vaults stopped bank robbers?

I am pleading with you to get back to reality. Let's get back to the Constitution. If you want to force people to protect the unborn, then amend the Constitution. A better way to bring about change is to have people do so voluntarily through education about the sanctity of life. Many of us here (me included) don't want any part of abortion and are pro-life. We aren't going to force others to do the same thing. We would rather see them come to this conclusion by themselves and in their own time.

So because the law has not

So because the law has not stopped murder or drunk driving...should we then make it legal? What logic is this?

SteveMT's picture

Do you want to build even more prisons? Really?

You are sounding like a government apologist. We cannot enforce the laws that are on the books now, so you want to create even more laws, this one being to force a woman to have a baby. Take a step back and examine what you are advocating,....even more laws instead of individual responsibility. The next law will be to force her to raise it to be a fine upstanding citizen, or else! Yup, more jail time, more prison building. I'm begging you to get back to reality. This issue is a no-winner.

Well, we could release some

Well, we could release some of those victimless crimes and make room for the baby killers. But really...we enforce the law by shutting it down.

You didn't answer my question.

SteveMT's picture

Where will you put all of these "murderers?"

Would the 30+ million abortions that have already been performed now be made a crime retroactively, or would the people involved be given a waiver, i.e. grandfathered-in? We could build huge special prisons for these people with very large audio systems. They would be made to listen to crying babies 24/7 and eat only Enfamil.

Listen, I don't have all the

Listen, I don't have all the answers but I don't believe we should be providing options to perform these murders. What makes you think that if it were readily available that we would have 30 million abortions still. Perhaps if it weren't so easy than they will think twice.

SteveMT's picture

You are taking about logic?

If abortion is murder, then give everyone who has had one or performed one a life sentence, or do you want to even more, like executions. Let's set up guillotines around the country and put these executions on the tele and bill them as 'the ultimate reality show.' This would be the number one rated program that would beat out dancing with the stars. Logic? You are talking about illogic.


Sister...do you feed kids in impoverished neighborhoods? Do you support the homeless? Do you contribute to orphans?

Why are you so focused on what other people do in their bedrooms and physician office???

Yes actually. Because I

Yes actually.

Because I advocate liberty for all. And I felt something in my heart today that compelled me to write about it. That is all.


Amen brother.

I think there should be more

I think there should be more pictures posted on what an abortion looks like.

Here's one at 8 weeks. Which is 6 weeks after conception.


No worse than....

This picture is no worse than these:
No worse than malignant tumors from smoking.
No worse than a cirrhotic liver of an alcoholic.
No worse than the massive accumulation of intestinal stool of people who are sedentary, obese and want an easy fix.
I have seen them all, in person. People should have the right to CHOOSE. Regardless...

You are clearly missing the

You are clearly missing the point. Are you doing it on purpose because your arguments are absurd.

The whole point of any debate

The whole point of any debate is that we respectfully disagree. Only I am capable of living comfortably with my actions and leave yours alone. A person seeking a legal abortion only has to answer to themselves and God. Not you or me.

As someone who wants to end

As someone who wants to end the unjust killings over seas I also wish to end the unjust killings in the whom.

But it's not true.

Your many postings say otherwise. You advocate the draft. You support the Air Force and consider those who have killed a million people in Iraq, heroes.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

Your twisting my words David.

Your twisting my words David. You are talking about a post where I asked people who are currently serving or have served what I can tell my son about enlisting in the military. You have not served so you are not qualified to give your opinion in that matter. And I am proud of my husband. What kind of wife would I be if shamed my husband for vowing to die for me?

Just stop. You are actually becoming borderline stalker.

It seems to me that so much

It seems to me that so much of the moral scaffolding in the abortion debate has been erected by men. I don't mean just men, but by an entire male perspective and one that women just kinda grabbed hold of when the issue was up for grabs.

I don't see that there's a female conceived moral structure for the debate.

I know this goes on and on. I know it's unfocused. I've had an inkling that the ideas about disparity of force I studied for a permit-to-carry course I took applied. I kept meaning to try to synthesize them into something cohesive. Alas I haven't, after more than a year.

So this is just a spew of ideas.

I'll preface it by saying, I've not found a scaffolding of ideology about abortion on either side that fits with my notions of justice/right/wrong. I find myself, as a woman and mother, viscerally against abortion, but a philosophic base always gets squishy. This is my first blush of something that feels solid.

When the issue became a public discourse with Roe vs. Wade, women were in the midst of sea change in how they viewed their ability to exert power. From my observations, we women were in that initial phase power acquisition; the zeros-sum, my-power-only-comes-at-the-expense-of-yours phase.

We were all, "Men impregnate us. How dare men (sperm) effect such sweeping changes in our bodies and leave us with a baby/kid/teen dependent. We won't have it. They can't do that do us. We need recourse. We need justice. We need government."

We women let it be about the injustice of men getting to have sex as sport when we didn't get that same frivolity.

I'm not sure I blame them, those women who came before me, to were pissed at the injustice of it.

But rather than focus on our own power, we took the easy route -- blame the oppressor. I don't know how it played out in living rooms and kitchens, how a whole lot of women decided their power to procreate wasn't all that powerful.

But we did. We women decided to opt out of intrinsic power and go for the extrinsic power -- men's power.

There's this notion of disparity of force. Men (and some women) who have physical and/or skilled-built power, know the score. Right? If she's slapping you and screaming, you can't haul off and deliver a full round house punch. There's a legal and moral idea of least harm. If you have a lot of power, you only use what is necessary to prevent harm. Right? Men know that they can't go ape shit on a woman who is screaming and flailing at them. Women know they can't body slam a tantrum toddler against the minivan.

Disparity of force, least harmful response. That's just common sense and it's something we all kind of know innately. If you've got power, you don't use it to harm the powerless. If you do, most of your fellow human beings will condemn you for it.

So there's a huge disparity of force/power between a woman and her fetus. As a woman all my life and as a mother half of it, I know that my radar for situations that involve a disparity of force has intensified. I've got a little baby and the world at large has a disparity of force against him. I'd never know how capable I was of hurting others as when I became a mother and understood the need to defend. Maybe boys grow up into men with that somehow ingrained. For me, as for most of the women I know, that internalization of dis party of force became real when the baby was in our arms.

I think a lot of women are brought up to think that their power comes from capturing something back from men. So that even the baby in their uterus/arms is just another form of male domination.

But what if we'd never consider ourselves inferior? What if it wasn't some zero-sum game in which women had to take some power from me to enjoy their own power?

What if women considered their own power as powerful?

What if women saw the power they had over the lives in their womb as real power? What if we had to behave like we demand men behave?

Least harm. Disparity of force.

We women have an ultimate disparity of force over our fetuses.

What if we weren't so concerned with who we perceive had power over us, BUT WHAT WE have power over. What if we decided our moral culpability is ours. Because we have an overwhelming disparity of force. We whine and complain and serve up retraining orders asking the state to intervene in our bad choice. I get that. Our naive/needy/pick-your-adjective behaviors shouldn't consign us to being subject to the disparity of force between men and women.

But the woman's movement must move on. At some point, we've got to quite escaping moral culpability. If men have a disparity of force over us, and we expect the state to back us, we've got to take responsiblity for those over whom we have a disparity of force.

Not one living thing falls under this umbrella more than the fetus we bear. We can kill them. We don't to make accomplices of other moral agents. We've been doing it for hundreds of years. Even when the herbs didn't work, women quietly bashed newborns head in.

Disparity of force. Women have it over their unborn children. I, for one, think that women are fully able and necessary moral agents. I think that we need to quit assuming that someone else is responsible. We have such a disparity of force against the fetus growing in us.

When you have the power, it's your responsibility to do least harm. Abortion is most harm. It's an abdication of power. Shame on us. Instead of griping about male power, we should deal well with the power we have.

I'm disappointed that women who demand state-sponsored retraining orders against the violent men, whom they've chosen to associate with, on the grounds those men have a disparity of force over them, at the same time insist they've got the right to exercise and even more draconian disparity of force over their fetuses/babies.

It's a messed up notion of power. It's smacks of Stockholm syndrome. Women have been so eager to give up on being moral agents so much that even in the sacrosanct place where female morality rules without male interference, we just say, "Hey, I'm bigger and I'm in charge."

This is a shame.

When you know you're powerful, you don't wield that power indiscriminately. Men don't hit women. Women don't abort babies.

The folks who feel powerless do that.

I'm ashamed that the women's movement has largely been bucking up the idea that women are morally incapacitated by their wombs.

If anyone has insights along these lines, I welcome feedback, as I keep thinking about turning these fledgling ideas into something more.

google this

Medical Science Monitor 10(10): SR5-16, 2004

its a pdf file and not sure how to link it here.

according to the study 64% of women who have an abortion do so because they are coerced. over 50% of them feel that it is morally wrong to do so. And over 30% of women have medical problems afterward.

if the majority of women who are having abortions are doing so because someone else is forcing them to then abortion is about population control and not "choice". In other words america is a lot more like communist china than we want to admit and "liberty" minded people are arguing for the communism, albeit a more subtle for of communism for now.

Furthermore you can not have liberty with out responsibility one of the responsibilities in life is pregnancy and child birth in denying that responsibility we are denying liberty.

If you are pro life....

If you are pro life, then you'd better be against:
1. The death penalty no matter what
2. War of any kind
3. Spaying any dogs with heat
4. Killing even the hungry roaches after your veggie burger