-7 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.

Whitch life? The mother or

Whitch life? The mother or the child? Forcing a woman to have a child could end up with the mother dying. But on principle, I'm against aggression and in particular by the state. Can't help but feel like abortion should not involve government at all.

The issue just doesnt matter one way or the other, to me

To me, anything that can't breathe on its own is SOL unless they have the money/technology for a respirator. Fetuses are no more politically interesting to me than people with terminal illnesses on a respirator. Either they have money to pay or a generous donor or they do not.

Fetuses, having no income or money, are SOL. If some charity wants to preserve them in some way, best of luck to them.


"Libertarians Avoiding the Issue to Protect the Right to Life?"

How about "Republicans and conservatives avoiding the issue to protect the right to life"...

Seriously, when republicans had complete control of Congress and presidency, did they do anything about abortion?

Libertarians are just trying to get a few people elected, lets point fingers at those who created this system and are currently in control.

Of Course The Republicans Didn't Do Anything

Because there is no difference between the two controlled parties. Case in point: NAFTA. Another case in point: The Bogus Reagan Revolution. Another case in point: endless war and ever increasing government, no matter which party is in charge. The inalienable right to life is indispensable, though, for a free society.

Edward Moran

Damn, got bit by another old topic.

What is going on here at DP?

I'm libertarian and very much pro-life.

The Party was hijacked in the 80s by libtards who just want to get high and they brought their abortion views with them.

The platform plank you see now is a result of placating them, which should never have happened.

The present language won out because most people don't want to focus on that issue on the national level, or don't see a government solution.

Screw the pro-choice and the pro-life movements.

I believe that life begins at conception.

However, an unwanted guest previously invited in is still subject to the eviction process. Post a 10-day notice and use the gentilest use of force to remove the tresspasser.


This is where Dr. Block and I part ways.

Not only is this technologically infeasible, it supposes that the concept of self-ownership exists in a vacuum or sprang from one.

It did not.

It came from the concept of personal responsibility. Which is a necessary concept to avoid being a slave, and to avoid the case for totalitarian distopias.

This concept or even "law" of human existence, means you can't shirk responsibility and still have a case for your liberty.

Inviting the baby in comes with a duty to care for and nurture.

Otherwise, what you advocate is license - not liberty.

You have liberty BECAUSE you have responsibilities. Those liberties are NECESSARY in order for you to fulfill those responsibilities.

Shirk those responsibilities, especially to the point of harming another, and you have no case for your liberty.

Let's put this in universal terms as any rational person would.

Inviting some person in comes with a duty to care for and nurture (for as long as they need the care and nurturing) Does this not prohibit women from putting up children for adoption until they are of age to survive on their own?

So, if you take in your buddy, cousin, brother or brother-in law who can not survive due to his circumstances (kicked out of the house, no income), you have the duty to provide until he reaches gestation (self sustainability), if ever, and you may never revoke that invitation. Apparently, you have no right to revoke an invitation to such person and must suffer all the ill effects of maintaining such a person.

I abhor infanticide, post-birth abortion, and any "grind and suck" operations because I believe that life begins at conception and that human life form, even being an unwanted tresspasser, should be afforded the same rights as other humans. That being forceful removal in the most gentile manner after posting the required legal notice.

To be consistent with human life, you must place the same relationships on the mother-fetus as you do other relationships, otherwise you have created a "superhuman class" for the unborn human child that has rights that exceed those of the other humans within their relationships.

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.

Did you seriously just say that?

Are you really implying that babies are murdered to protect the life of their mothers?


Please, fishy, explain a bit more.

Pregnancy carries risks

All pregnancies risk the life of the mother.
And there are risks that are not physical.
I do not like abortions. I know you cannot make a law to stop them.

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?


i am pro-life anti-prohibition

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.

let me pull out my copy of Moerman....

Let'see....herbs used by Native peoples as abortifacient....Great Spirit, it's a whole page! Let me list just the ones used by multiple tribes:

Acorus, Artemisia, Equisetum, Fragaria, Heteromeles, Hypericium, Lindera, Mitchella, Phoradendron, Porophyllum, Rubus, Sanguinaria, Sanicula, Sarracenia, Taxus

Sorry Smudge, looks like Native peoples were quite adept at aborting. Hm, I wonder why the Great Spirit put all these abortifacient plants all over the place.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

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?