Help me with the Liberty and Abortion debate

[paulbot24]

The idea of natural rights, is that all individuals are included. If humanity is picking and choosing who gets to have natural rights, or who is considered to be human. They can't defend Liberty. Why? If you can't respect the unborn's right to exist, and you feel that you have the power to determine who is or isn't a human being. You do not believe in natural rights.

This is good, but remember, these are often the people that have the mindset that they are pro-choice and will gladly proclaim loudly "I am pro-choice in everything, people should have the right to choose everything" but then want to take away our rights to certain light bulbs because it is not a "smart" choice. This thread comes to mind. They hear Rand say pro-life and just shut down or give you the back alley abortion speech. It is frustrating because people say things like "You libertarians, of all people, should respect a woman's "liberty" to choose." You have a window of about ten seconds after that to come up with something good or they jest the liberty movement forever as illogical. As we've seen in how many debates, it is not the most logical answer that is deemed the best, it is usually the cleverest answer that everybody remembers, and picks. Clever wit and a plastic smile beats logic every time or Ron Paul would be our President. I do not look forward to the Maddow hoards trolling Rand hard for his "pro-life" views but I see it as an inevitability.

[Feeding the Abscess]

He's an anarchist, so he doesn't think there should be any murder laws. I'm not sure why he didn't admit that.

Private law would very likely handle murder laws differently than a violent monopoly institution, and I could easily see myself supporting some form of a murder law in such a society.

[cheapseats]

[takes a deep breath]

Yes, the Federal government has no business being involved. But that doesn't get you out of answering the question at the state level. At some point it must be addressed. So let's do it!

Virtually nobody thinks newborn babies should be expendable as a matter of convenience to the parents no matter how pro-choice. And virtually nobody thinks that an unfertilized egg is a human being with a full set of rights that must be protected by the use of force on the mother, no matter how "pro-life". So for the vast majority of people, the issue of abortion boils down to when, between those two endpoints, an egg becomes a human. There are various theories relating to this question and rational, compassionate, moral people disagree as to which is correct. Consequently, what millions of people believe is a medical procedure millions of other people believe is murder. It is a problem. It is a problem that would stymie a professional philosopher. Fortunately, to answer the abortion question from a libertarian perspective, you don't have to be able to resolve this thorny philosophical problem.

The reason you do not have to answer that difficult philosophical question is because you can answer ANOTHER question. The other question is: "Is this a problem government can solve?" The answer to THAT question is easy. No, this is not a problem government can solve. Government is scarcely able to fill potholes competently. It is certainly not qualified to resolve esoteric issues of philosophy.

Even the most dedicated statist would have to agree that there are some problems government cannot solve. This is one of them. Of course just because government cannot solve a problem does not mean it cannot be solved. It simply means that people must solve it themselves without government. People all over the country do that a million times a day. It is a novel idea, people solving problems without government, and it seems so inefficient and time-consuming not being able to use force to make other people adopt your solution, but sometimes it just must be that way.

But perhaps you are not convinced. Once upon a time, abortion was illegal in most of the USA. Did that solve the problem? Of course not. If it had, we never would have seen Roe v. Wade. So making abortion illegal did not solve the problem. Did Roe v. Wade solve the problem? Of course not. It merely mobilized and politicized the other side of the issue. So there you have it. Making abortion illegal did not solve the problem and making it legal did not solve the problem. Those are the ONLY choices government gives you and both failed. Government cannot solve this problem.

What government CAN do, and what it does relentlessly, is PRETEND that it can solve the problem. Government has been so effective at making people believe it can solve this problem that entire elections are won or lost on the issue. People vote on the single promise of government solving this problem that it clearly cannot solve. Government cannot punish an act as murder that millions of people think is harmless and it cannot endorse as a "right" an act that millions of people think is murder. The problem simply cannot be solved by government fiat either way. Government needs to be sent packing because it cannot solve the problem and by polarizing the people it makes a genuine resolution more difficult.

So what do you do when you have a problem that government cannot solve? You solve it without government. You use your mind and your words and your creativity and your market power to persuade and innovate and change minds until the PEOPLE and the CULTURE and the MARKET solve the problem. Then it will truly be solved. It might take a long time. It will not be easy. But it will not be solved any other way.

True.

So the libertarian answer to the question of abortion is "this is a problem government cannot solve and so it needs to get out of the way and let the people solve it." You don't have to know what the solution will be if you know the right way - the ONLY way - to get at it.

False.

Irreconcilable Differences are definitionally irreconcilable. Every imbalance/disagreement/unpleasantry/affront is not rightly identified as a PROBLEM that flawed humans must SOLVE...conspicuously often in someone's "favor".

"The right way - the ONLY way" speaks directly to some STILL trying to enjoin their beliefs/opinions/feelings on others.

Life is unfair and brief, and our collective plate is overfull with compelling issues that have empirical measures. Abortion is NOT one of them.

Individual plates are overfull with all KINDSA moral issues without tackling Abortion, or we wouldn't be in SUCH DEEP SHIT.

[James Madison]

Exactly, which is why forcing a mother to keep the baby in her body, the ultimate property right, is a grave offense. No other person has a right to someone's property - seeing as though we've already laid out the case for the unborn also being a person, ipso facto neither does a baby have a right to someone's property.

I would agree with this if the child voluntarily entered the mother's womb, but he is placed their without permission. If would be akin to me sucker-punching a man, dragging him to my property, and then shooting him for trespassing.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I would agree with this if the child voluntarily entered the mother's womb, but he is placed their without permission. If would be akin to me sucker-punching a man, dragging him to my property, and then shooting him for trespassing.

There was no third party when the act of sex occurred; there was also no third party for at least a day or two after the act; and even if there were, one could hardly call a fertilized egg a consenting contracting partner. The analogy is more like someone dropping a baby on your doorstep than you forcing a viable adult who can object to being aggressed against, or evicting a non-paying renter in extreme freezing temperatures, such as in Antarctica for the shelter argument.

So, essentially, chopping a fetus up is a non-starter (as that would be taking a life in a non-defense situation), but expelling it from the womb is not (non-lethal removal from property is not murder).

[paulbot24]

[takes a deep breath]

Yes, the Federal government has no business being involved. But that doesn't get you out of answering the question at the state level. At some point it must be addressed. So let's do it!

Virtually nobody thinks newborn babies should be expendable as a matter of convenience to the parents no matter how pro-choice. And virtually nobody thinks that an unfertilized egg is a human being with a full set of rights that must be protected by the use of force on the mother, no matter how "pro-life". So for the vast majority of people, the issue of abortion boils down to when, between those two endpoints, an egg becomes a human. There are various theories relating to this question and rational, compassionate, moral people disagree as to which is correct. Consequently, what millions of people believe is a medical procedure millions of other people believe is murder. It is a problem. It is a problem that would stymie a professional philosopher. Fortunately, to answer the abortion question from a libertarian perspective, you don't have to be able to resolve this thorny philosophical problem.

The reason you do not have to answer that difficult philosophical question is because you can answer ANOTHER question. The other question is: "Is this a problem government can solve?" The answer to THAT question is easy. No, this is not a problem government can solve. Government is scarcely able to fill potholes competently. It is certainly not qualified to resolve esoteric issues of philosophy.

Even the most dedicated statist would have to agree that there are some problems government cannot solve. This is one of them. Of course just because government cannot solve a problem does not mean it cannot be solved. It simply means that people must solve it themselves without government. People all over the country do that a million times a day. It is a novel idea, people solving problems without government, and it seems so inefficient and time-consuming not being able to use force to make other people adopt your solution, but sometimes it just must be that way.

But perhaps you are not convinced. Once upon a time, abortion was illegal in most of the USA. Did that solve the problem? Of course not. If it had, we never would have seen Roe v. Wade. So making abortion illegal did not solve the problem. Did Roe v. Wade solve the problem? Of course not. It merely mobilized and politicized the other side of the issue. So there you have it. Making abortion illegal did not solve the problem and making it legal did not solve the problem. Those are the ONLY choices government gives you and both failed. Government cannot solve this problem.

What government CAN do, and what it does relentlessly, is PRETEND that it can solve the problem. Government has been so effective at making people believe it can solve this problem that entire elections are won or lost on the issue. People vote on the single promise of government solving this problem that it clearly cannot solve. Government cannot punish an act as murder that millions of people think is harmless and it cannot endorse as a "right" an act that millions of people think is murder. The problem simply cannot be solved by government fiat either way. Government needs to be sent packing because it cannot solve the problem and by polarizing the people it makes a genuine resolution more difficult.

So what do you do when you have a problem that government cannot solve? You solve it without government. You use your mind and your words and your creativity and your market power to persuade and innovate and change minds until the PEOPLE and the CULTURE and the MARKET solve the problem. Then it will truly be solved. It might take a long time. It will not be easy. But it will not be solved any other way.

So the libertarian answer to the question of abortion is "this is a problem government cannot solve and so it needs to get out of the way and let the people solve it." You don't have to know what the solution will be if you know the right way - the ONLY way - to get at it.

This is excellent answer. I like the way this works. Especially the way it gets people acquainted with the idea that *GASP* the federal government cannot solve all their problems. If only they realized how much it actually can't solve their problems, it clearly doesn't give a $#%@ about their problems.

[opal]

not a political issue.. this is a privacy issue. What happens in the doctors office is no one in the government's business.

[LibForestPaul]

Exactly, which is why forcing a mother to keep the baby in her body, the ultimate property right, is a grave offense. No other person has a right to someone's property - seeing as though we've already laid out the case for the unborn also being a person, ipso facto neither does a baby have a right to someone's property.

Is that a true argument, or are you just trolling?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Is that a true argument, or are you just trolling?

I'm being serious. The elderly, infirm, lazy, or mentally challenged don't have a right to someone else's property; neither does a fetus. Otherwise those who argue for fetal rights argue for group and special rights. The "right to life" does not infer a right to someone else caring for that life, it only means that someone else can't aggressively end it.

[LibForestPaul]

I'm being serious. The elderly, infirm, lazy, or mentally challenged don't have a right to someone else's property; neither does a fetus. Otherwise those who argue for fetal rights argue for group and special rights. The "right to life" does not infer a right to someone else caring for that life, it only means that someone else can't aggressively end it.

No, you do have a responsibilty when caring for a child to ensure its health and well being. You are not allowed to remove his clothes and let him stand outside in Arizona sun being baked to a crisp stating that he had no right to your clothes and your shelter. Best map I can draw, sorry.