-8 votes

Libertarians Avoiding the Issue to Protect the Right to Life?

In totalitarian regimes, there is no respect or value for human life. In the Soviet Union, NAZI Germany, Communist China and Cambodia. The killed off the handicapped, the terminally ill and the retarded as useless eaters. All in the name of progress euthanasia was practiced. The new death panels are the law today denying care to the elderly and the handicapped in the name of saving money. We are going in the same direction if we do not change course.

For those Libertarians, If we do not defend the sanctity of life in the woman’s womb or the terminally ill to the elderly. We will have a society when we are bedridden ill that can be cured very inexpensively is given a death sentence being denied care. Who will stand for your right to life? That voice is silenced where no one is around to speak for you. God Help You!

Read the rest of the story clicking link at the Lone State Watchdog!

Comment viewing options

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

Christians have the most abortions. Millions & millions of them

I can't find any evidence whatsoever that Libertarians have abortions. However, it is undeniable that you Christians line up to murder your unborn at a furious rate. Maybe the religious fanatic known as Realman2020 would please get off the collective Libertarian ass and go proselytize his genocidal flock.
Accusing us Libertarians with complicity in the massacre of millions of unborn, à la Nazis and Pol Pot, well, that's a low blow. And really just plain stupid.


Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".*

* http://www.antiochian.org/node/16950

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

They are not Christians. Just

They are not Christians. Just as the crusaders were not Christians. They are HYPOCRITES and their father is the Devil, they will burn in hell if they do not repent.

And the 'Nazis' did not do that. The holocaust is fiction. Wake up.

The 'Nazis' did not do that.

The 'Nazis' did not do that. You've been lied to.

Nothing can cover the shame of 50 million murdered children in the past decades.

If you think it is right to murder your child then you are the scum of the earth and Satan is your father. Repent.

Anybody value the life of mothers?

We HAVE to stop falling for the divide and conquer on this. It does not matter how much you hate abortions, making them a crime will not stop them. It will keep you fighting with people who do not want to fight with you.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

I mostly just read here and I

I mostly just read here and I enjoy the discourse on liberty. I had to chime in on this one. I am a pro-life libertarian. I didn't come by this decision easily or without a lot of thought. How many here would hold a woman liable for drinking while pregnant? How about smoking crack? You cannot state that life begins when the baby is viable because the baby would never have been viable if the sperm and ovum had not conjoined.
Many on this site preach about personal responsibility and the right to choose. It's true that people have choices and they must live with the consequences of those choices whether they like it or not. In this day and age there are many contraceptives available if you choose not to use one then that's on you the same goes for abstinence. Why should a baby be cast aside because of the irresponsible actions of it's parents?
I was 38 when my first child was born. I had many sexual encounters before that but I was responsible enough to be prepared. How can you be an advocate for non-aggression and at the same time be ok with the termination of a life even if it's in it's early stages?
The moment I saw my first son in the womb he was my little peanut. At that moment it really hit home that I was a dad. I was very actively involved in the pregnancy and I went to nearly every appointment and watched him grow through ultrasound images. This process is part of what convinced me that life begins at conception. We have the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why should an infant be different?

You can't change too much

If a woman wants to get rid of her fetus, changing a law isn't going to stop her. Many other cheaper ways to get rid of it. It's been happening for thousands of years.

Especially european herbs

One thing I've never heard of (don't mean it didn't exist) is First Nations using abortive agents. Pennyroyal and Wormwood will do the job but AFAIK these are both imported. Child sacrifices on the other hand....not up where you are but down South? Where I am now?

Yup. More South really. But in the precolombian era this was culturally, economically and linguistically part of South America.

Oh BTW hi Ralph, blessings of Waziya strength.

There is nothing strange about having a bar of soap in your right pocket, it's just what's happening.

NATZI dictators use any ploy to usurp my individual freedom

So we have dictators who are going to make abortion or anti abortion dictates.

Abortion is bad. Dictators are worse. No authority to dictate anything.

If you posted that you think its a good idea to have the government force everyone to eat ice cream I would tell you the same.

You can not force others into your wishes.


I think you are missing the whole point

of being a person who embraces personal liberty, not only for yourself, but for others also.
You may not agree, but it is NOT your choice.

SteveMT's picture

Here is a movie trailer about this subject.

Is this what you want?

Based on a true story: what if she were YOU?

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

There is no right to life.

There is no right to life. There is a right to live free from be aggressed upon. Removing another person from your body is no different than removing them from your home. The fact it results in death is secondary. Notice I never mentioned morality here. That's because morality lives in the realm of a person's thoughts and we don't need thought police.

That being said, let free market principles rule and there wouldn't be much abortion anyway so this argument is all much ado about nothing...if you really believe in the cause of liberty. Or, you just care about your one pet issue and everything else is a sham because you fully need a large gov with a monopoly on force to enforce your morality on others.

Let god sort out the morality. In the meantime try to win the war and not just a battle that won't make any difference anyway unless many other factors change along with it. Or just keep being the pseudo-libertarians you have already outed yourselves to be.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Rothbard got that one wrong,

Rothbard got that one wrong, showing his allegiance to Satan.

Morality is absolute. And you are accountable.

The War is righting our wrongs and turning away from this anti-christ system that is gaining ground.

Good point: "Let god sort out the morality".

If there is no god, then man by some means determines what is moral, and legal. Whenever there is a lack of consensus as there is with abortion, drug use, gay marriage, etc., neither side should have the power to impose their wills on the other, else we are not free, and we have conflict in society that dangerously divides us; we should error on the side of freedom. If there is overwhelming consensus, of course, nobody is going to object to enforcing this consensus view of morality or legality, as for example the moral objection to and illegality of rape.

If there is a God, and we are capable of figuring out his moral dictates, then any who transgress run the risk of God's wrath and He will of course deal with us in due time. And which God we worship, and which religion we subscribe to will determine which morals and laws we support.

Since there is such a divide both within the US and between the US and certain other nations over Gods, or the lack of their existence, I think we need to butt out of the views of other people, and keep government out of these divided views of morality. Otherwise the force of the state will be wasted in an attempt to enforce what is not enforceable; just look at the failed war on drugs and all the damage that war caused as an example.

One of the reasons the freedom movement is not really progressing is the divide on issues like abortion, homosexuality, and drugs. I think way too many people really don't believe in freedom, but rather believe in imposing their views on others.

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

Oh for Heaven's sake.

Oh for Heaven's sake.

Libertarians are willing to allow states to decide whether....

abortion should be outlawed.

I don't know what else you want us to do short of arresting 15-year old girls for 1st degree murder if they terminate their pregnancy.

Personally, I could not live with myself if I got a woman pregnant and she terminated the child especially after it had recorded brain waves and heart beat. To me, a spirit would have entered that mass of cells.

That is just my opinion and many will disagree but have no more moral or scientific authority than I to make that judgement.

Now, here's a couple of questions many liberty Pro-Life advocates are avoiding.

1.) What should the penalty be for abortion?

2.) How many unwanted children are you willing to adopt if abortion is outlawed?

Pro-choice is going to end no

Pro-choice is going to end no matter what. Every day we develop better ways to keep premature babies alive; babies before their birth date (nothing to do with 19-20 weeks after.. like these morons in the comment section lmao)... When all babies before the "birth date" are successfully saved.. there literally will be no argument for abortion besides the fact they want to keep partying in college; instead of taking responsibility.

The down votes you are

The down votes you are receiving is disheartening.

We all know right from wrong. Murder is wrong.

So what ...

"there literally will be no argument for abortion besides the fact they want to keep partying in college; instead of taking responsibility."

Women can also opt for adoption or drop it off at a fire station post birth under baby safe haven statutes. Here is the ironic thing, if giving a baby up for adoption or dropping a baby off at a fire station under baby safe haven law is perfectly ok, legal, and moral ... your quoted statement is complete BS.

Foolishness at its finest

You are clearly ignorant of natural abortion remedies.

There are herbal teas that can induce an abortion by the pregnant mother making the choice to drink the the tea to abort the pregnancy. The mother can make the tea in the privacy of their own home and the body will naturally purge/absorb the fetus.

How are you or anyone else going to stop this? You won't because you can't. You are as wrong as you could possibly be here. Reality is actually the exact opposite of your claim here.

Who is the moron?

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

That works for all forms of

That works for all forms of murder. Why if one simply uses Iocane Powder which is odorless, tastless and can kill a man in seconds, there's no way we could stop said murders! How are you, or anyone else going to stop this? You won't because you can't! Legalize murder!

In other words, if a human life has a right to live, who cares if its possible to stop the crime. There will always be criminals, there will always be crime, however there are some things that we simply cannot allow in as far as we can. Crimes against life, liberty and property "are" those things.

My guess is if you stopped calling it "abortion" and started calling it what it is, you'd see a lot less murder. Fifteen year old girls think they are getting a "procedure" rather than snuffing out their own child's life for their convienance. I believe it should not be "safe" to commit murder. I believe if you want to hire a hit-man to assassinate your baby, you should have to do it just like other criminals do it. In a back room with some goon you hired with a switch-blade.

We already call it murder anyway. If you don't think so, punch a pregnant woman in the stomach, causing a miscarriage, and see what they charge you with. I'll give you a hint: It's not going to be assault.

I think there is some debait that can happen concerning when its a baby, and im all for pregnancy prevention. However once that's a baby, hands off or you deserve the be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The only real question here is

Are you going to accept liability for your accusations of "murder"? If there is not consent of the governed in the form of a liable principal accuser, witness or informant then there would be no lawful agency for the government to have access to lawful powers of justice.

I have no objections to you or anyone else accepting liability for your own accusations facing the accused before a jury with the full applicability of the maxim of law:

"If one falsely accuses another of a crime, the punishment due to that crime should be inflicted upon the perjured informer"

Are you willing to accept liability for the punishment of murder if you are found to falsely accuse? This is the only real question here.

I do have a MAJOR problem with unlawful acts of "government" claiming agency when there is no principal accepting liability for those falsely claiming agency to bring justice for ANYTHING. The real problem I see here is that obtaining the necessary proof of mens rea and even proof that such a life existed in the first place is going to be very difficult to obtain and is not something I am willing to accept liability for in regards to an outside party of which I have no knowledge of. I also do not believe it is any of my business to make a decision for another woman what she needs to do with her own body.

As far as my own personal standard for judgement if I was on a jury in an abortion case is that the baby is part of the woman's own body until the umbilical is cut. Any decision of what to do with her own body until the umbilical chord is cut is outside the scope of me to interfere with her own private medical decisions.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

My 20 month old & my 4 years

My 20 month old & my 4 years old are both dependant on their parents and would die without us. Can we "abort" them too? They can't survive on their own, and while they may not get food through a tube, they get food only by our labor and sacrifice. Its terribly inconvienant to have to feed and cloth them sometimes. Its my body that has to work, change diapers, cook, clean and care for them for them to survive. Shouldn't I be able to "abort" them legally?

Ever seen your daughter flapping her arms and sucking her thumb in the womb at the second trimester? If you had, you wouldn't be going on about how she's not a human life.

This has nothing to do with the woman's body and everything to do with the baby's body. What kind of sick society murder's babies for convienance?

As to your legal stuff, sure. People already get charged with homocide every day for killing babies in the womb. Get drunk and crash your car into a pregnant woman. When her baby dies, you get homocide wether that baby is a smattering of cells or 8 months old. The law is already there, its just there's a huge sect of people who think that somehow its okay if the assassin is the person who got pregnant.

In other words, yes I absolutly would subject myself to that nonsense, because the law is already extremely clear on the subject. No assailent who cost a pregnant woman her baby's life ever got off with the "its not a human life yet" excuse. Ridiculous.

Your irrationality shows here

You are confused. You imply your statements of "its not a human life yet" are mine when I have said no such thing. As far as your understanding of law you are incorrect there too. You said,"People already get charged with homocide every day for killing babies in the womb". That is not legally correct. Persons are charged with 'crimes' NOT "People". There is a legal difference and this is most likely a source of your confusion in law.

You are essentially expressing here that you want the government to make a law when this kind of thinking is exactly what has destroyed our liberty and enabled tyrants to commit tyranny upon innocent people with no identifiable chain of liability for any accusations. You can accuse whoever you wish but I can tell you unequivocally that if you could not prove your claims beyond all reasonable doubt then if I were on a jury judging your guilt/innocence for false accusations of murder I would definitely find you guilty and as a juror I would see to it that you were thrown in prison and that you would pay for loss time and injury that your false accusations caused upon the one you falsely accused. You better have proof beyond all reasonable doubt of mens rea to commit murder or you would be going down like the criminal you would be for making false accusations. As a juror I would have no mercy upon anyone who falsely accuses another of a crime that they did not commit.

As far as what is happening now in our courts I have never seen lawful application of justice at any point in my lifetime anywhere in America, so I have NO FAITH in ANY cases you infer to here. Our courts are acting criminally in every form of cases they are currently performing and every judge, prosecuting attorney and most law enforcement in this country should be in prison for the all out tyranny and destruction of law they have done with their own breach of duty and false claims of agency. So referring to cases of this or that is not going to fly with me because I know how they are violating the law every single working day.

As far as aborting your free born children if you were to intentionally kill them then you would be guilty of murder. As I told you my standard is the moment the umbilical chord is cut. At that point it is not your body any more. At that point it is their body and their property. You trespass their property and you would be the criminal.

If you were to terrorize your neighbor with false accusations of murder then I only wish upon you exactly what you give your neighbor. So do what you will but face the consequences.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

I don't want anyone to make a

Why would I want or need to make a new law? Murder is already illegal in nearly every society on earth since the beggining of civilization (save for the most evil and tyrannical). I simply would prefer that the term "abortion" vanish, as its misleading and dishonest.

I find this concept that if you accuse someone of a crime and they are found innocent, you are somehow guilty of their crime completely stupid. If you suspect heavily that someone has stolen from you, so you accuse them, bring forth your evidence and are found incorrect, how in the world does that make you guilty of theft? You should certainly have to renumerate them for the time and expense of going to the court/arbitor/dispute resolution agency/etc, but why would we want to punish people for crimes they didn't commit? That's absurd.

Also, semantics and legal-speak nonsense concerning "persons" or "Person" or whatever are irrelivant to this issue. Who said anything about the current justice system? I believe it is a breach of a child's right to life, and therfore an afront to natural law to murder that child in the womb. I don't care if you use the American justice system, common law, arbitors in a stateless-society, or plain-old force to protect that baby's right to life. The only way a person looses their rights in a just society is to deprive another of his/her rights unjustly. Maliciously exterminating a human life in or out of the womb is the ultimate breach to the right to life, and the person who hires, carries out,and/or acts as accomplice to this crime (if it can be prooven) is guilty of a crime and deserves to be delt with in whichever way your society deems appropriate to the offense (be it murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, etc)

I personally would defend with lethal force my unborn baby's life from an aggressor if they could not be disuaded from the attempt. I would absolutly use force to defend someone else's unborn baby as well, even if that ment detaining the mother to protect the innocent child if her intent to kill her baby could be prooven (though I recognise that those who mean to do it, would find a way nearly every time). I would also contribute to a system of law that defended said baby against such force. I would also be absolutly justified in doing so by natural law. The only times when killing the baby would be justified are very clear in natural law. Only if the child posses unreasonable risk to the mother is she justified in defending her own life.

As you can see, this "issue" is a line in the sand even between libertarians. There are those who see a baby in danger of being the victim of an aggressive act of murder, and those who see a smattering of meaningless cells being removed. For the former, that "removal" is indistinguishable from watching an infant being murdered for convienance, and so you can see how quickly this issue could become problematic. You can show me all the "definitions" of "parasite" or whatever else you want. Ive seen my daughter at 11 weeks on the ultrasound. She was as much my little girl then as she is now. For me, trying to dehumanise a child in the womb with nonsensical terminology to rationalize his/her extermination is nothing but base savagery that only vicious killers would partake in, and this is NOT a religeous issue for me as I am 100% athiest.

You know truth but deny it.

You know truth but deny it. There is a creator and he created you and he loves you. He wrote his law in your spirit and has given you courage to speak against these evildoers supporting murder. Seek him while he may be found, call upon him while he is near. I can see it in your words he is reaching out.

I mostly agree with your statements here

A couple of points of clarifications I have.

You said:
"I find this concept that if you accuse someone of a crime and they are found innocent, you are somehow guilty of their crime completely stupid."

When speaking terms in law every word matters. I did not say you would be guilty of the same crime because you would not be. IF you falsely accused someone you would be guilty of false accusations and must be held liable for remedy. If you perjured the information in any way, under the maxim of law I provided you SHOULD receive the PUNISHMENT due for the original accusation. This does not mean that you WOULD receive the same punishment and it does not mean that the punishment you receive is the crime you are guilty of. This maxim of law is to ensure protection of the innocent and maintain balanced scales of justice through equal liability.

Murder is such a serious accusation and so harmful to any innocent accused of such a thing that it would be a serious punishment that, if I were on a jury, would issue prison time for such a perjurous false accusation. Not necessarily the same time but depending on the level of negligence/maliciousness it would be at least some prison time in order to make sure such a false accuser NEVER operated in such a negligent/malicious manner again towards innocent people. Its called protections of law. Ninnies going around falsely accusing people of serious crimes and severely injuring their time and reputation is a very serious issue that should not be stood for in a community of people who live according to law. The maxim is there for the deterrence of injuring innocent people from such willy nilly ninniness by people. I don't make the law I uphold the law and have full faith in its reasons for providing protection of the innocent. I hope you can appreciate that aspect of this line here. So yes convicting someone of murder who did not commit murder would be a travesty and a violation of law.

Also you said:
"Only if the child posses unreasonable risk to the mother is she justified in defending her own life."

This is where the biggest problem of all comes in for actually succeeding in bringing and winning a murder case against the mother. Her medical issues are PRIVATE. How are you going to obtain the information required to prove your case without violating the "mother's" privacy? How are you ever going to know and be able to prove she was pregnant in the first place without violating the law to get the information?

I have thought about this issue thoroughly from a law perspective and while there are cases where one may have lawfully obtained evidence to get proof that indeed the woman was pregnant it is going to be much more difficult (nearly impossible) to prove mens rea of intent to murder by the woman. Even if this successfully made it through a court with a guilty verdict of murder after that one case the word will get out in the society and pregnant women would alter their behavior as to ensure that there were never all pieces necessary to provide proof for such a "murder".

The thing is that my own position is that I don't want to ever see such a "murder" happen at all. But I also know I don't want to see a tyrannical state giving young women the death penalty when their only intent was to not destroy their own life and bring a child into a life of misery. If this scenario is considered murder then you still end up 'legally' killing the mother, which seems just as insane as the woman who aborted the pregnancy. I can't see it as murder when the woman did not have intent to commit murder but intended to protect her own livelihood and spare the child what she's perceives as a near certain life of misery. Would the 'mother' who aborts her pregnancy go shoot someone else who is already living a life of misery? Would she intentionally murder someone she does not want around her? Most likely not because in most cases the reality is that she is not a murderer because her intent was not to murder, her intent was to remove something from her body she does not want there for a whole multitude of reasons.

All of these reasons is why I see it as more dangerous for the accuser than the accused in such a case especially if real law is upheld to protect the innocent from those who will willy nilly accuse someone of such a serious crime without real solid proof and demonstration of all elements that make up that crime.

The way that you fly off the handle here interpreting my own words and the maxim of law presented here in a way that is not at all what is explicitly said demonstrates that you lack the cautious clarity to actually know what really constitutes murder and what elements of proof are needed and how to lawfully obtain that proof. Law and justice is not about our opinions, its about all elements required to demonstrate proof without breaking the law to obtain that proof which is exactly what a lawful society should want because that is the protections of law. Should we destroy the protections of law to make sure that women cannot have private medical affairs?

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

I guess it is

moronic to base ones evaluation on science and all available data points pertaining to the subject. I would be better served basing my stance on emotion, and opinion?

"It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500g (17.6 ounces) to survive."


If they found a single celled

If they found a single celled organizm on Europa, they'd call it "Life." Further, they'd call it "Europan Life."

What's that make that little smattering of cells in a human's womb growing into a baby? Sounds like "Human Life" to me.

The difference being that

A single celled organism if found on Europa most likely developed on its own, vetted by the natural selection process, and was/is not dependent on a host to survive; where as a fetus is completely dependent on the host for survival (biological definition of a parasite*) until enough maturation within the womb can occur for the organism to be "self-sustaining". These are vastly different scenarios from a biological stand point. You are comparing apples to hand grenades.

noun \ˈper-ə-ˌsīt, ˈpa-rə-\

Biology: an animal or plant that lives in or on another animal or plant and gets food and/or protection from it.

"sounds like Human life to ME." <----this is subjective conjecture