PDA

View Full Version : Health Care: Question about Ron and "War on Abortion"




FreeTraveler
01-04-2012, 05:38 PM
Yes, I know that term is a little front-loaded, but it's intentional.

Dr. Paul knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Alcohol Prohibition was a disaster for this country.

Dr. Paul has watched over his lifetime as Prohibition Redux, the War on Drugs, has destroyed our inner cities, empowered and enriched law-breaking gangs of thugs, contributed greatly to the loss of personal freedom through things such as Terry stops, and provided the rationale for the transformation of our police forces, intended to "protect and serve" the citizenry, into militarized units that break down doors and kill pets, then ask questions later.

As a doctor, I'm sure he's well aware that a few scant decades ago, when abortion was illegal, some 50,000 women a year died from back-alley abortions. We know that the burden, as with the war on drugs, fell most heavily on the poor and minorities who couldn't afford the 'back-door' solutions such as travel to another country or state that were available to others.

Given all that information, and knowing from history that prohibition has never worked in any form, does anyone really believe that Abortion Prohibition will be successful, when past experience with alcohol, drugs, and abortions themselves tell us otherwise? Won't Abortion Prohibition bring back all the ugly problems we're trying to end Drug Prohibition to eliminate?

Just to get it out there, I think Roe v. Wade was a pragmatic decision and that a 24-week limit is a compromise the country can live with.

eduardo89
01-04-2012, 05:42 PM
Just to get it out there, I think Roe v. Wade was a pragmatic decision and that a 24-week limit is a compromise the country can live with.

I know this doesnt answer your question but this is a 23 week old baby

http://www.lovingit.co.uk/images/2010-06_23-week-baby.jpg

So no, 24 weeks is not a "compromise" I can live with.

FreeTraveler
01-04-2012, 05:43 PM
No, that doesn't answer my question. It's very similar to the arguments for Drug Prohibition and Alcohol Prohibition "for the children." Can we stick to the question?

acptulsa
01-04-2012, 05:47 PM
Well, having states decide the issue isn't exactly the same thing. After all, there are still dry counties in Oklahoma and Arkansas, among others, and these are hardly causing the problems that Prohibition itself did.

I think his approach will at least allow people who do not approve of it to be free from having to subsidize it.

eduardo89
01-04-2012, 05:51 PM
No, that doesn't answer my question. It's very similar to the arguments for Drug Prohibition and Alcohol Prohibition "for the children." Can we stick to the question?

We will never fully get rid of abortion and I don't think that a "war on abortion" in the sense of the war on drugs would ever work or is wise. That said, I do believe that abortion clinics should be banned, doctors who are caught performing abortions should be tried with murder (or at the very least something more harsh than manslaughter) and that abortion pill manufacturing, sale and importation be banned. I don't think that most women should be prosecuted for abortion, although this should be done on a case by case basis and always at the state level.

I think most of the effort should be placed on abortion prevention. Things such as education to prevent unwanted pregnancies, promote alternatives such as adoption, and a general change in attitude in moral values such as the discouragement of promiscuity. The latter obviously I would want minimal government involvement, but I think in a Ron Paul America we would have private society take a much bigger role in the "enforcing morality" role that it rightfully serves and government has usurped.

The only place I see for the federal government in the abortion debate is passing a constitutional amendment stating that life begins at conception and all the provisions in the constitution apply to both the unborn and the born. I would leave the writing of laws dealing with enforcement and punishment up to the states just like current murder laws are.

klamath
01-04-2012, 06:03 PM
Ok so we went from 50,000, (questionable) women dead a year to 500,000 women dead and 500,000 men dead a year.
Same stupid argument. Can't completely stop it so why try. Wars have been around longer than abortion so why fight against them we can't stop them.
Wow thought he had the smoking gun argument for aboution:rolleyes:

eduardo89
01-04-2012, 06:17 PM
As a doctor, I'm sure he's well aware that a few scant decades ago, when abortion was illegal, some 50,000 women a year died from back-alley abortions.

Read Ron's book on abortion. It's from 1987 or so and someone posted a PDF on the forum a week or so ago. He gives the government figures for "back alley" abortion deaths and if I recall correctly it was 33 (yes, 33) in 1972.

So we went from <50 deaths a year to 1.5 million deaths, just to provide "safe" abortions. And remember, every single abortion results in a least one death.

Inny Binny
01-05-2012, 01:10 AM
We will never fully get rid of abortion and I don't think that a "war on abortion" in the sense of the war on drugs would ever work or is wise. That said, I do believe that abortion clinics should be banned, doctors who are caught performing abortions should be tried with murder (or at the very least something more harsh than manslaughter) and that abortion pill manufacturing, sale and importation be banned. I don't think that most women should be prosecuted for abortion, although this should be done on a case by case basis and always at the state level.

I think most of the effort should be placed on abortion prevention. Things such as education to prevent unwanted pregnancies, promote alternatives such as adoption, and a general change in attitude in moral values such as the discouragement of promiscuity. The latter obviously I would want minimal government involvement, but I think in a Ron Paul America we would have private society take a much bigger role in the "enforcing morality" role that it rightfully serves and government has usurped.

The only place I see for the federal government in the abortion debate is passing a constitutional amendment stating that life begins at conception and all the provisions in the constitution apply to both the unborn and the born. I would leave the writing of laws dealing with enforcement and punishment up to the states just like current murder laws are.

So, placing extraordinarily strict rules on abortion and then going around preaching about education? Sounds an awful lot like the war on drugs to me.

eduardo89
01-05-2012, 01:14 AM
So, placing extraordinarily strict rules on abortion and then going around preaching about education? Sounds an awful lot like the war on drugs to me.

Not really, because the main focus in the abortion debate should always be prevention. However, unlike taking drugs, an abortion ALWAYS violates the rights of another human being and therefore is an appropriate place for government to intervene.

lilymc
01-05-2012, 01:21 AM
However, unlike taking drugs, an abortion ALWAYS violates the rights of another human being and therefore is an appropriate place for government to intervene.

AMEN.

Inny Binny
01-05-2012, 01:30 AM
The most unfortunate thing about the pro-life position is that if we ban abortion, the progress in finding solutions to transfer fetuses to life support will practically halt, thus never eliminating abortion. It should be safe and legal at all stages of pregnancy - and we should allow masses of research into new technologies to decrease the harm caused. Like everything else, declaring war has harmful consequences.

lilymc
01-05-2012, 01:39 AM
It should be safe and legal at all stages of pregnancy

You gotta be kidding me. You do realize that premature babies have survived outside the womb as early as 21 or 22 weeks? And I don't think anyone would advocate the murder of a 22 week baby who was born prematurely. Yet you're saying it's perfectly OK to butcher a baby up to 38 weeks, as long as its still on the other side of the birth canal?

Do you see the illogic in that?

Inny Binny
01-05-2012, 02:31 AM
Any proper libertarian analysis of abortion leads to the conclusion that prohibiting it is equivalent to slavery. If everyone has the right to self-ownership, then everyone has the right to expel anyone from their body at any time. We also extend this to owned property. We all agree that a homeless person can't stay nine months at your house, or use your kidney because of a life-threatening disease, or spend nine months on life support on your dime, without your continuing consent. Therefore a fetus can't use your body if you don't want it to be there.

But what if that homeless person was going to die without shelter, kidneys or life support? This situation might be undesirable; we might even say the person who denies use of their property is a nasty person; but as libertarians we don't believe even the certainty of death is reason to use force against another. We must find voluntary means to help people. So applied to the situation of abortion - we might find abortion to be abhorrent, we might find the death of fetuses to be sad, and we might even choose to dissociate from anyone who commits one. But that does not legitimise using force against a woman if she does not want to allow use of her body. This is a fundamental libertarian principle. Forcing a woman to use her body in ways she does not consent to is slavery.

Now someone might come along and argue that because she had sex she made a contract with the fetus before conception and thus cannot abort. This is problematic for two obvious reasons: 1) you can't contract with something that doesn't even exist, and 2) the inalienability of the will is fundamental. Can a black man sell himself into eternal slavery to his white masters? Of course not - no-one has the free will to trade their free will, as it results in a paradox.

lilymc
01-05-2012, 04:12 AM
Any proper libertarian analysis of abortion leads to the conclusion that prohibiting it is equivalent to slavery. If everyone has the right to self-ownership, then everyone has the right to expel anyone from their body at any time. We also extend this to owned property. We all agree that a homeless person can't stay nine months at your house, or use your kidney because of a life-threatening disease, or spend nine months on life support on your dime, without your continuing consent. Therefore a fetus can't use your body if you don't want it to be there.

But what if that homeless person was going to die without shelter, kidneys or life support? This situation might be undesirable; we might even say the person who denies use of their property is a nasty person; but as libertarians we don't believe even the certainty of death is reason to use force against another. We must find voluntary means to help people. So applied to the situation of abortion - we might find abortion to be abhorrent, we might find the death of fetuses to be sad, and we might even choose to dissociate from anyone who commits one. But that does not legitimise using force against a woman if she does not want to allow use of her body. This is a fundamental libertarian principle. Forcing a woman to use her body in ways she does not consent to is slavery.

The first flaw in your argument that stood out to me was that you bring up the fundamental libertarian principle of not using force against someone against their will - yet you advocate just that - you support forcing or "evicting" the preborn baby from the womb. And of course that does much more than it would if you were to evict a homeless person from your property - we're talking about the intentional killing an innocent human being.

Normally at this point, the abortion supporter would argue, "But it's not a human being. It's just a blob of cells." Well, for the sake of not turning this thread into a lengthy abortion debate, let's go with something you said. You said abortion should be "safe and legal at all stages of pregnancy." So let's take a look at what you believe is OK to (pardon the graphic imagery here) stab in the back of the neck with sharp scissors, put a hose in the hole and suck its brains out. These photos are actually of a preborn who is a few months younger than the age which you think its acceptable to kill.

http://ashestobeauty.net/photos/fetus-5mo.jpg http://ashestobeauty.net/photos/05mos.jpg

Can you look at those photos and honestly say that it's moral to use force against that baby, and kill it, simply because in your view it is "unwelcomed property"?



Now someone might come along and argue that because she had sex she made a contract with the fetus before conception and thus cannot abort. This is problematic for two obvious reasons: 1) you can't contract with something that doesn't even exist, and 2) the inalienability of the will is fundamental. Can a black man sell himself into eternal slavery to his white masters? Of course not - no-one has the free will to trade their free will, as it results in a paradox.

Ok, with all due respect, that's one of the strangest arguments I've ever heard for excusing oneself of responsibility for their own actions.

Everyone knows that when you have sex, and you're a woman, there's a chance that you'll get pregnant. Even WITH birth control, there's still a chance that you will get pregnant. So, to claim that a preborn baby is "unwelcome" or "uninvited" is (whether one realizes it or not) false on the face of it, because your own actions were an invitation for pregnancy. Contrary to how some people try to portray it, the creation of a baby is not something that happens out of the blue, like being randomly struck by lightning. And the pregnancy was certainly not caused by the baby. It was the actions of the parents that brought the baby into this world. And parents are obligated to take care of their dependent children. If they are unwilling or unable to do that, then they need to give up their children to someone who is willing and able to take over their job.

I want to post an excerpt from an article on libertarians for life (a site with some excellent articles on the abortion issue, from a libertarian perspective.)




The right to be in the womb

Conception followed by eviction from the womb could be compared to capturing someone, placing him on an airplane, and then shoving him out without a parachute in mid-flight. We have no right to endanger others without their consent and then intentionally or negligently fail to protect them from the harm.

Conception and pregnancy are foreseeable consequences of even careful sex. By causing children to be, parents also cause them to need support; it's a package deal. When parents mutually enable their sperm and ova to join, the parents are not enslaved -- they've volunteered. This may put the needs of a parent and child in conflict, but it creates no clash of rights between them. This is because parents owe their children support.



Trampling on the most basic human right - life- of an innocent human being is not libertarian at all. And to use force and aggression against someone who is as innocent as one can be, and didn't cause the situation in the first place (contrary to your example of a squatter on someone else's property) is also not libertarian.

Please check out this site, when you have some time: Libertarians for Life (l4l.org). Go to the library and read the articles. There's an article by Dr. Ron Paul there, you might want to read. :)

John F Kennedy III
01-05-2012, 04:42 AM
Not really, because the main focus in the abortion debate should always be prevention. However, unlike taking drugs, an abortion ALWAYS violates the rights of another human being and therefore is an appropriate place for government to intervene.

Agreed.

John F Kennedy III
01-05-2012, 04:45 AM
Any proper libertarian analysis of abortion leads to the conclusion that prohibiting it is equivalent to slavery. If everyone has the right to self-ownership, then everyone has the right to expel anyone from their body at any time. We also extend this to owned property. We all agree that a homeless person can't stay nine months at your house, or use your kidney because of a life-threatening disease, or spend nine months on life support on your dime, without your continuing consent. Therefore a fetus can't use your body if you don't want it to be there.

But what if that homeless person was going to die without shelter, kidneys or life support? This situation might be undesirable; we might even say the person who denies use of their property is a nasty person; but as libertarians we don't believe even the certainty of death is reason to use force against another. We must find voluntary means to help people. So applied to the situation of abortion - we might find abortion to be abhorrent, we might find the death of fetuses to be sad, and we might even choose to dissociate from anyone who commits one. But that does not legitimise using force against a woman if she does not want to allow use of her body. This is a fundamental libertarian principle. Forcing a woman to use her body in ways she does not consent to is slavery.

Now someone might come along and argue that because she had sex she made a contract with the fetus before conception and thus cannot abort. This is problematic for two obvious reasons: 1) you can't contract with something that doesn't even exist, and 2) the inalienability of the will is fundamental. Can a black man sell himself into eternal slavery to his white masters? Of course not - no-one has the free will to trade their free will, as it results in a paradox.

Lol wut?

John F Kennedy III
01-05-2012, 04:45 AM
//////

John F Kennedy III
01-05-2012, 04:46 AM
/////

John F Kennedy III
01-05-2012, 04:48 AM
24 seconds is a compromise I can't live with.

eduardo89
01-05-2012, 11:20 AM
It should be safe and legal at all stages of pregnancy - and we should allow masses of research into new technologies to decrease the harm caused.

That is a seriously disgusting and disturbing viewpoint. Look at the picture in the second post, that's a 23 week old baby, you honestly have you problem with killing that child?

How is it possible to cause less harm when killing another person?

Inny Binny
01-06-2012, 06:51 PM
Lol wut?

This is the argument that Rothbard and many other pro-choice libertarians use. I wouldn't dismiss it so carelessly.

Read Chapter 14 of Ethics of Liberty (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp).


The first flaw in your argument that stood out to me was that you bring up the fundamental libertarian principle of not using force against someone against their will - yet you advocate just that - you support forcing or "evicting" the preborn baby from the womb. And of course that does much more than it would if you were to evict a homeless person from your property - we're talking about the intentional killing an innocent human being.

Normally at this point, the abortion supporter would argue, "But it's not a human being. It's just a blob of cells." Well, for the sake of not turning this thread into a lengthy abortion debate, let's go with something you said. You said abortion should be "safe and legal at all stages of pregnancy." So let's take a look at what you believe is OK to (pardon the graphic imagery here) stab in the back of the neck with sharp scissors, put a hose in the hole and suck its brains out. These photos are actually of a preborn who is a few months younger than the age which you think its acceptable to kill.

Of course I can use force. If I evict a homeless person that requires my food, water and shelter in order to live, then I am evicting him in precisely the same way as a fetus. He will die without sustenance, as will the fetus. It is important that I use the minimum force possible - if there are widely available mechanisms to evict the fetus while keeping it alive, these must be used otherwise abortion is equivalent to murder.

Whether or not the fetus constitutes a life is irrelevant. The issue at hand is that this is my body, and I have complete control over it.


Ok, with all due respect, that's one of the strangest arguments I've ever heard for excusing oneself of responsibility for their own actions.

Everyone knows that when you have sex, and you're a woman, there's a chance that you'll get pregnant. Even WITH birth control, there's still a chance that you will get pregnant. So, to claim that a preborn baby is "unwelcome" or "uninvited" is (whether one realizes it or not) false on the face of it, because your own actions were an invitation for pregnancy. Contrary to how some people try to portray it, the creation of a baby is not something that happens out of the blue, like being randomly struck by lightning. And the pregnancy was certainly not caused by the baby. It was the actions of the parents that brought the baby into this world. And parents are obligated to take care of their dependent children. If they are unwilling or unable to do that, then they need to give up their children to someone who is willing and able to take over their job.

It isn't a strange argument at all. That I have an inalienable will and cannot trade away any of it is central to Rothbard's theory of contract. If a woman can sell off her womb space for 9 months, then a black man can be a slave for nine months, even if he changes his mind half way through. Most libertarians would consider the latter impossible to swallow, so if they are to be consistent, they have to accept the former.

The idea that consent is given in all cases of pregnancy just because you know there is a 1 in 50 risk of something happening is completely ridiculous. Consent is something firmly decided, not vaguely thrown at people. However a contract requires at least two parties - and we can be pretty confident that egg and sperm is not able to consent to anything. But even after all this, it still isn't important whether there is an agreement or not, because you simply cannot trade control over your body. It is paradoxical and antithetical to libertarianism.


The right to be in the womb

Conception followed by eviction from the womb could be compared to capturing someone, placing him on an airplane, and then shoving him out without a parachute in mid-flight. We have no right to endanger others without their consent and then intentionally or negligently fail to protect them from the harm.

Conception and pregnancy are foreseeable consequences of even careful sex. By causing children to be, parents also cause them to need support; it's a package deal. When parents mutually enable their sperm and ova to join, the parents are not enslaved -- they've volunteered. This may put the needs of a parent and child in conflict, but it creates no clash of rights between them. This is because parents owe their children support.

The capture analogy is totally false. There is no initial force applied. If pregnancy were equivalent to capture, then pregnancy would have to be banned as violating the non-aggression principle. Because there was no capture, the eviction is therefore moral.

And again with the enslavement - of course they are enslaved - you cannot sell away your will!


Trampling on the most basic human right - life- of an innocent human being is not libertarian at all. And to use force and aggression against someone who is as innocent as one can be, and didn't cause the situation in the first place (contrary to your example of a squatter on someone else's property) is also not libertarian.

Here is where the most misunderstanding I think can occur. Everyone mentions this 'right-to-life'. But no such thing exists. If it did we'd all be imprisoned every time we 'let' and old person die, or withheld our food from poor African children. Neither the elderly nor the poor have a 'right-to-life', and so the fetus doesn't either. Everybody only has negative rights - the right not to be aggressed against. And a woman who cannot control her body is being aggressed against.


That is a seriously disgusting and disturbing viewpoint. Look at the picture in the second post, that's a 23 week old baby, you honestly have you problem with killing that child?

How is it possible to cause less harm when killing another person?

It can't be considered killing if it counts as eviction.

I will agree that it is extremely disgusting to see a late-term abortion. I suspect inducing birth would result in a live birth very late in the day, and so a 'throw-in-the-bucket' abortion would in those cases be considered murder. But a woman has the right to absolute control of her body, and so can use the least aggression possible to evict the baby from her body.

Personally I consider the right to choose just as important as everyone here considers the right to life - so important, in fact, that I believe women will always be marginalised and victimised (http://radgeek.com/gt/2008/01/22/roe_v/) unless there is an unrestricted right-to-choose. Don't think that I like abortion, or don't care about it - quite the opposite. It is clearly an awful procedure that no-one wants to go through. But the pro-choice position is in my mind the only reasonable position, both from a libertarian moral and a societal ethical position.

Dartht33bagger
01-06-2012, 08:34 PM
Abortion is one thing I can't see eye to eye with Ron Paul. I am pro-choice, so his pro-life stances are a little unappealing to me. I personally think that abortion should be an option for all pregnant women. Who are we to tell them that they have to keep the baby? Not to mention our exponentially increasing population. If abortions were never performed, the amount of births would increase, thus further increasing our already critical mass population.

Something that I think goes along with this argument is how good of a home life would a child have if the parents wanted an abortion but was not able to do so? I doubt the parents would be too excited about having to have a child around and would probably not treat it as well as a parent that actually wanted a child. Another option would be adoption, but again that may also prove to make a horrible childhood for the child.

klamath
01-06-2012, 08:44 PM
Prochoice people are just as slimy and the worse Neocon on the planet. Their is NO difference between them. They are the hyprocrits that ruined RP's run.

Dartht33bagger
01-06-2012, 09:30 PM
Prochoice people are just as slimy and the worse Neocon on the planet. Their is NO difference between them. They are the hyprocrits that ruined RP's run.

I don't know if you are directing that towards me or if you saying that the pro-choice candidates did that.

I can FOR sure say that I will only vote for Ron Paul. I just happen to be pro-choice and find his pro-life stance a little unappealing is all. In the big scheme of things, that really means little to me because everything else about him is pretty much spot on.

eduardo89
01-06-2012, 09:32 PM
Abortion is one thing I can't see eye to eye with Ron Paul. I am pro-choice, so his pro-life stances are a little unappealing to me. I personally think that abortion should be an option for all pregnant women. Who are we to tell them that they have to keep the baby? Not to mention our exponentially increasing population. If abortions were never performed, the amount of births would increase, thus further increasing our already critical mass population.

Something that I think goes along with this argument is how good of a home life would a child have if the parents wanted an abortion but was not able to do so? I doubt the parents would be too excited about having to have a child around and would probably not treat it as well as a parent that actually wanted a child. Another option would be adoption, but again that may also prove to make a horrible childhood for the child.

Why not legalize infanticide then? The reasons you listed can be used to justify that position just as well.

Dartht33bagger
01-06-2012, 09:52 PM
Why not legalize infanticide then? The reasons you listed can be used to justify that position just as well.

My honest feeling on that is indifference. If others want to do that then fine. I know that I personally would never do that, so that's all that really matters to me. If a couple in Ohio decides to do that, it probably will never effect me directly in my life, which makes me fairly apathetic to it.

I guess that viewpoint stems from the fact that I have never been able to identify with the "well how would you feel if you were to be aborted" argument. I honestly can't remember anything clearly in my life before I was in Pre-school. There are some sporadic still frames in my mind of being a little younger (maybe 4), but nothing as to when I'm a baby. For that reason, if I was aborted, what could I do about it? I wouldn't be as old as I am now, I wouldn't have the cognitive function that I have now, and I would have no knowledge that I ever was aborted. I would just be dead. Therefore, I wouldn't feel anything in terms of being aborted because I would no longer exist.

eduardo89
01-06-2012, 09:57 PM
My honest feeling on that is indifference. If others want to do that then fine. I know that I personally would never do that, so that's all that really matters to me. If a couple in Ohio decides to do that, it probably will never effect me directly in my life, which makes me fairly apathetic to it.

I guess that viewpoint stems from the fact that I have never been able to identify with the "well how would you feel if you were to be aborted" argument. I honestly can't remember anything clearly in my life before I was in Pre-school. There are some sporadic still frames in my mind of being a little younger (maybe 4), but nothing as to when I'm a baby. For that reason, if I was aborted, what could I do about it? I wouldn't be as old as I am now, I wouldn't have the cognitive function that I have now, and I would have no knowledge that I ever was aborted. I would just be dead. Therefore, I wouldn't feel anything in terms of being aborted because I would no longer exist.

Why are you even here then? How can anyone who claims to support the ideals of liberty (I assume you do since you're on this forum) be apathetic about the most important concept in liberty: protecting life. The fact that you can say you're indifferent to not only abortion but infanticide is not only disturbing but truly revolting.

So you're fine with killing the unborn and infants, why stop there? What about toddlers? What about the elderly? How about people with disabilities? Why not just legalize all forms of murder? As you say, if it doesn't affect you directly why would you care?

Dartht33bagger
01-06-2012, 10:12 PM
So you're fine with killing the unborn and infants, why stop there? What about toddlers? What about the elderly? How about people with disabilities? Why not just legalize all forms of murder? As you say, if it doesn't affect you directly why would you care?

I don't think infants should die. Nor do I think that the unborn, elderly or disabled should die. My response came completely from that fact that if I saw in the news that someone killed their infant child, I would probably be pretty apathetic towards it. Of course they will garner punishment from it, but there is nothing that actually stops them from committing the act.

If the baby was able to be born, you've waited far too long to decide if you want the child or not. At that point, you should not be allowed to kill the child and should have to go from there. However, its early on in the pregnancy and you decide you no longer want the child, I find nothing wrong with that. That is a decision only the parents can make because it will effect the rest of their lives. Not allowing them the option of this would be restricting.

klamath
01-06-2012, 10:16 PM
Why are you even here then? How can anyone who claims to support the ideals of liberty (I assume you do since you're on this forum) be apathetic about the most important concept in liberty: protecting life. The fact that you can say you're indifferent to not only abortion but infanticide is not only disturbing but truly revolting.

So you're fine with killing the unborn and infants, why stop there? What about toddlers? What about the elderly? How about people with disabilities? Why not just legalize all forms of murder? As you say, if it doesn't affect you directly why would you care? I rest my case in post 23.

HigherVision
01-07-2012, 04:27 AM
With rights come responsibilities. Everyone, or at least adults (and I think teenagers as well actually) should have the right to have sex with whoever they want. But if you bring a child into the world you have the responsibility to take care of the child or at least see to it that someone else does who's willing to if you're not. Murdering the child in the womb is unacceptable as it's violating the rights of the unborn child. Arguing that it's okay because no one can tell a woman what to do with her body is like saying I should be able to punch you in the face because my fist is part of my body, and no one can tell me what to do with my body. When your actions directly hurt another person instead of just yourself that's when the rules change. I don't think the fact that the child is not born yet negates that, it's still alive. Perhaps abortion isn't as bad as outright killing a fully formed, born person but in my opinion it's still a crime.

And to those who argue that to be anti-abortion is anti-woman, remember that about 50% of all the children aborted are female.


Any proper libertarian analysis of abortion leads to the conclusion that prohibiting it is equivalent to slavery. If everyone has the right to self-ownership, then everyone has the right to expel anyone from their body at any time. We also extend this to owned property. We all agree that a homeless person can't stay nine months at your house, or use your kidney because of a life-threatening disease, or spend nine months on life support on your dime, without your continuing consent. Therefore a fetus can't use your body if you don't want it to be there.

But what if that homeless person was going to die without shelter, kidneys or life support? This situation might be undesirable; we might even say the person who denies use of their property is a nasty person; but as libertarians we don't believe even the certainty of death is reason to use force against another. We must find voluntary means to help people. So applied to the situation of abortion - we might find abortion to be abhorrent, we might find the death of fetuses to be sad, and we might even choose to dissociate from anyone who commits one. But that does not legitimise using force against a woman if she does not want to allow use of her body. This is a fundamental libertarian principle. Forcing a woman to use her body in ways she does not consent to is slavery.

Now someone might come along and argue that because she had sex she made a contract with the fetus before conception and thus cannot abort. This is problematic for two obvious reasons: 1) you can't contract with something that doesn't even exist, and 2) the inalienability of the will is fundamental. Can a black man sell himself into eternal slavery to his white masters? Of course not - no-one has the free will to trade their free will, as it results in a paradox.

Going by your logic then, it's completely acceptable for parents to abandon their already born children as well and force them to try to fend on their own. Obviously that's ridiculous.

eduardo89
01-07-2012, 06:20 AM
And to those who argue that to be anti-abortion is anti-woman, remember that about 50% of all the children aborted are female.



Actually more girls are aborted than boys, especially in china and India where people want to have male offspring for various reasons.

lilymc
01-07-2012, 06:25 AM
Of course I can use force. If I evict a homeless person that requires my food, water and shelter in order to live, then I am evicting him in precisely the same way as a fetus. He will die without sustenance, as will the fetus.

Evicting a homeless person from your property is the exact same thing as killing a preborn baby? That is absurd. Let's go through this.

1) The homeless person is not being shredded to pieces and sucked out with a hose. He must leave, according to the law, but he is still alive and able to go find another place to sleep. The preborn, on the other hand, is directly killed. One must leave alive, the other dead.

2) The homeless person committed a crime, by camping out on your property. It was his actions that caused him to get arrested. The preborn, on the other hand, did nothing wrong. You can't get any more innocent than a preborn baby. You just can't. Again, not the same thing.



It is important that I use the minimum force possible - if there are widely available mechanisms to evict the fetus while keeping it alive, these must be used otherwise abortion is equivalent to murder.

And if that technology is not yet available? You admit that in that case it would be murder, but you seem to be ignoring the obvious - that is precisely what happens every day. Either you are contradicting yourself here, or admitting you support murder. Which is it?



Whether or not the fetus constitutes a life is irrelevant. The issue at hand is that this is my body, and I have complete control over it.

Wow, are you serious? It absolutely matters whether or not the fetus constitutes a human life. That is the pivotal issue in the abortion debate.

What you are obviously missing here is this: Yes, we can do what we want to our own bodies, as long as we are not violating the rights of someone else. This is why the humanity of the preborn is absolutely relevant.



It isn't a strange argument at all. That I have an inalienable will and cannot trade away any of it is central to Rothbard's theory of contract. If a woman can sell off her womb space for 9 months, then a black man can be a slave for nine months, even if he changes his mind half way through. Most libertarians would consider the latter impossible to swallow, so if they are to be consistent, they have to accept the former.

Oh please, you once again act as if pregnancy is something that happens out of the blue, with no connection whatsoever to your actions. You know that sex has consequences, including the possibility of pregnancy, right? So you can't act like the innocent party here, who is being "enslaved." You have it completely backwards - you are enslaving another human being because the baby has no choice, no way to get out of the situation, no voice. And worse than that, you are killing an innocent human being. All the while playing the innocent victim, while trampling all over (and often, demonizing) the true victim.



The idea that consent is given in all cases of pregnancy just because you know there is a 1 in 50 risk of something happening is completely ridiculous. Consent is something firmly decided, not vaguely thrown at people. However a contract requires at least two parties - and we can be pretty confident that egg and sperm is not able to consent to anything. But even after all this, it still isn't important whether there is an agreement or not, because you simply cannot trade control over your body. It is paradoxical and antithetical to libertarianism.


It's only ridiculous to you because you don't want to accept that responsibility. And because you have been conditioned to think a certain way, and you have been taught a lie. The baby doesn't have to be able to sign a contract (talk about ridiculous). And once again, the "I can do what I want with my body" argument doesn't extend to violating the rights of another human being. And if trampling over the rights of the weakest and most defenseless among us is "libertarian" then count me out of "libertarianism."


The capture analogy is totally false. There is no initial force applied. If pregnancy were equivalent to capture, then pregnancy would have to be banned as violating the non-aggression principle. Because there was no capture, the eviction is therefore moral.

Does the baby have any choice in the matter? No. Even if you didn't originally intend to bring a new human being into the world, once you are fully aware that you are pregnant, at that point you are basically holding someone captive, and then throwing them out of an airplane, as the analogy goes.



Here is where the most misunderstanding I think can occur. Everyone mentions this 'right-to-life'. But no such thing exists. If it did we'd all be imprisoned every time we 'let' and old person die, or withheld our food from poor African children. Neither the elderly nor the poor have a 'right-to-life', and so the fetus doesn't either. Everybody only has negative rights - the right not to be aggressed against. And a woman who cannot control her body is being aggressed against.

You're misunderstanding. People have a right to not be unjustly killed. And as you stated, the right to not be aggressed against. That, of course, doesn't mean that it's not going to happen. Obviously people are murdered everyday. But we have laws against murder, laws that protect people from being unjustly killed. You were taking the term "right to life" far too literally. And once again, you are completely ignoring the fact that you are the one aggressing against the innocent party here (the preborn baby), while simultaneously playing the victim.


(Sorry, everyone, for us turning this thread into an abortion debate.)

tod evans
01-07-2012, 07:07 AM
I'm going to try to express my position on parental responsibility prior to entertaining the abortion arguement.

Obviously it takes both a male and female to create a fetus and so long as the sex was consentual it is my belief that both parents should have equal standing under law relating to the fetus.

Whether or not an individual state permits abortion common sense acknowledges that a fetus required both an egg and a sperm just to exist, so granting one parent the right to choose to abort without the other parents consent is immoral in my opinion.

How would women feel if the right to abort was only granted to the father? As things stand a father has no legal right to protect the fetus he played an equal part in creating.

I firmly believe that both parents should be entitled to equal rights to decide the fate of their fetus no matter what point "life" is determined to begin. Both parties contributed equally to the existance of the fetus and to continue to grant sole authority to abort to the mother infringes on the rights of the father to the extent his liberty is ignored.

Am I the only one here who holds this opinion?

John F Kennedy III
01-07-2012, 07:28 AM
This is the argument that Rothbard and many other pro-choice libertarians use. I wouldn't dismiss it so carelessly.


I would.

eduardo89
01-07-2012, 07:47 AM
I would.
Good thing I'm not a liberterian, I dismiss it quite carelessly as well.

John F Kennedy III
01-07-2012, 09:42 PM
Good thing I'm not a liberterian, I dismiss it quite carelessly as well.

I'm not a libertarian either :)

SisCyn
01-09-2012, 12:50 AM
As things stand a father has no legal right to protect the fetus he played an equal part in creating.


Both parties contributed equally to the existance of the fetus and to continue to grant sole authority to abort to the mother infringes on the rights of the father to the extent his liberty is ignored.

Both parties DO NOT contribute equally to the existance of a fetus.

Scientifically, the fetus is a parasite in the mother's body. The father is at liberty to leave the mother and the fetus, and so often times they do. A pregnant girl does not have that liberty.

I love babies. In a perfect world each child would be the product of two loving and equally responsible parents. I'm sure we could all rattle off a dozen or more cases that we personally know of where dad took his liberty and shrugs off his responsibility because he can. Mom can't.

No way am I personally "for" abortion, especially late term. But the facts are that 1 in 4 girls will be sexually assaulted by the time they are 18. Women are not called the weaker sex for no reason. Girls as young as 9 forced to carry through with a pregnancy when the cells are no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. No way.

So obvious that those advocating this ridiculous position have never been through the birthing process themselves. So obvious that you do not have vulnerable daughters who could be forced into something they do not want to go through. Guys and girls, your body rips if the docs don't cut you. Women still die in childbirth. Women forced to have 15 or more pregnancies because men think that they have a right to their bodies, that they are their property, and they can't keep their dick in their pants. I think this was the position that Margaret Sanger was coming from.

Roe v Wade, at over 35 years old will never be overturned. And all abortions were not back alley before that. There were plenty of family MDs who took care of the daughters of mothers who did not want their child to be forced to go through with something that some man forced upon them.

I love Ron Paul. If every man were like him we wouldn't have these difficult issues. But alas, he's one in a million and everyone has not been so fortunate to have someone like him for a father or husband.

And this is the main argument I hear from people who say a strict return to the Constitution is not workable, because that document only pertained to white men, and no one else.

The good news is that the stigma of an unmarried pregnant girl is not what it used to be, and more and more girls choose to go through with their pregnancies. But this is an individual choice that neither you nor I should be making judgements on, especially in the context of discussing liberty for all.