Libertarianism

[TheGreatGatsby]

Plenty of libertarians are pro-life. Plenty.

Are they pro-life for themselves, or against other people they don't know?

That is, do they have a moral position for themselves, or are they trying to force other people with laws?

The latter doesn't sound libertarian to me.

It's 100 percent libertarian if that person believes that fetuses have the same rights as any other child. We've already proven that fetuses feel pain.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Plenty of libertarians are pro-life. Plenty.

Are they pro-life for themselves, or against other people they don't know?

That is, do they have a moral position for themselves, or are they trying to force other people with laws?

The latter doesn't sound libertarian to me.

Exactly right. You can have a position on the issue and realize that forcing others is only going to lead to more conflict. I can stand right here and say my piece and those who have a different stance can have their way too.

Then the issue is best left up to the individual and the doctor.That also means that govt. isnt funding abortion clinics with taxpayer money either. They stand on their own merits.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Abortion should not even be up for legislative discussion. It's a moral and ethical issue left exclusively to the doctor and the patient relationship. Libertarians aren't in agreement on this, however. Plenty of them object to the notion with discussion of laws in place regarding the issue.

Plenty of libertarians are pro-life. Plenty.

I know. I happen to be one of them in defense of life. However, I do not believe that the issue will ever be resolved. Therefore, it should not be up for legislation. At the very best, let the citizens of a statee or locale decide if they will allow them. Some will, some wont and those who want/need to have one can have it done in places where they aren't barred. People that are heavily invested in the issue who are in an area that performs them have options too. It is never going to get any better than that. Period.

I f'ing hate the issue to be honest. But I'd be more pissed if it wasn't for the fact stupid people are aborting the most fetuses. I mean, I'm pretty Libertarian. But, there's something to be said for Darwinism.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Plenty of libertarians are pro-life. Plenty.

I know. I happen to be one of them in defense of life. However, I do not believe that the issue will ever be resolved. Therefore, it should not be up for legislation. At the very best, let the citizens of a statee or locale decide if they will allow them. Some will, some wont and those who want/need to have one can have it done in places where they aren't barred. People that are heavily invested in the issue who are in an area that performs them have options too. It is never going to get any better than that. Period.

I f'ing hate the issue to be honest. But I'd be more pissed if it wasn't for the fact stupid people are aborting the most fetuses. I mean, I'm pretty Libertarian. But, there's something to be said for Darwinism.

I completely agree. Abortion is one issue I absolutely despise, It's a double edged sword and there is no winning it from any position that I can see. Hence, I'm of the stance that it's best left to the doctor adn the patient.

 

[thanatos144]

I know. I happen to be one of them in defense of life. However, I do not believe that the issue will ever be resolved. Therefore, it should not be up for legislation. At the very best, let the citizens of a statee or locale decide if they will allow them. Some will, some wont and those who want/need to have one can have it done in places where they aren't barred. People that are heavily invested in the issue who are in an area that performs them have options too. It is never going to get any better than that. Period.

I f'ing hate the issue to be honest. But I'd be more pissed if it wasn't for the fact stupid people are aborting the most fetuses. I mean, I'm pretty Libertarian. But, there's something to be said for Darwinism.

I completely agree. Abortion is one issue I absolutely despise, It's a double edged sword and there is no winning it from any position that I can see. Hence, I'm of the stance that it's best left to the doctor adn the patient.

there is a position you win by... thats the position of not wanting innocent life snuffed out.

 

[Circe]

It's 100 percent libertarian if that person believes that fetuses have the same rights as any other child. We've already proven that fetuses feel pain.

That would be a pretty silly belief, however, given that a fetus, unlike a child, is attached by a placenta to a woman and is wholly dependent on her body. A child could be given to you to take care of.

You being given fetuses to take care of would not work well.

So probably it's not the same thing as a "child."

If you can't take care of the situation yourself, it's probably not your business.

What about birth control? Do you believe women don't have a right to stop potential citizens from being conceived and implanted?

Why are some so-called libertarians so eager to plaster laws all over womens' bodies? And only women. Otherwise, they're all for Freedom!! For men, that is.

Never mind, rhetorical question, it's the usual attempt to oppress and dominate women, and it's why libertarianism probably won't go anywhere after all. I was hoping, but. Some libertarians are indistinguishable from fat, male, white, old, Southern state lawmakers.


Not that there's anything wrong with that............

 

[thanatos144]

How is not wanting innocent babies to die oppressing and dominating women? I sure as hell am not allowed to kill someone what makes her different?.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And thats the crux of the entire argument. Is the fetus a citizen and thus protected by the law and as such, is abortion murder. Well, from a biological standpoint, even the most well versed doctors and others hold different perspectives on it. Is there a time frame when a fetus is grown enough to be considered a person? Does the woman have any say over her body?

This is the argument that goes round like a record and in the end, it's slashed into two groups (and those who hold no position). They will be doing a legal tango over the issue for many decades to come under the current circumstances.

It's best left to the state. I'd prefer leaving it to the doctor/patient relationship. It's a complex issue with no certainty in any direction. My only gripe is when government uses tax dollars to fund clinics who perform them.

 

[FA_Q2]

Can you come up with one such law that is tenable that would be the example of ‘oppressing’ men as you claim they are doing to women.

I think a valuable point here is nature has called and made that determination. Women have the babies. Simple as that and if we are to protect those babies then those laws are going to affect women. There really is nothing to be done about that.

I can think of a single law though and it is right down this ally. If a woman chooses not to have an abortion THEN the man is screwed. He has ZERO choice in the matter. For the next 18 years, he is legally bound to care for that child or pay the woman.

If the man wants an ‘abortion’ or to be disconnected from the child there is no options for him while the woman simply gets to abort the child. Further, if he really wants the child and the woman decides she does not, oh well. Better luck next time. So yes, there are laws that exist right now that ‘opress’ the man and FORCE the man to carry a financial burden for the child that he does not want to be enslaved to for 18 years against his will.

And you know why that law exists for him while the mother gets off with an abortion and no consequence for it: basic biology. She has the child in her body and he does not, she gets that call where he gets 18 years without any choice in the matter.

 

[FA_Q2]

I f'ing hate the issue to be honest. But I'd be more pissed if it wasn't for the fact stupid people are aborting the most fetuses. I mean, I'm pretty Libertarian. But, there's something to be said for Darwinism.

Unfortunately, Idiocracy is closer to the truth than I would like to admit. Abortion does not balance that reality by a million leagues.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Why are some so-called libertarians so eager to plaster laws all over womens' bodies? And only women. Otherwise, they're all for Freedom!! For men, that is.

Can you come up with one such law that is tenable that would be the example of ‘oppressing’ men as you claim they are doing to women.

I think a valuable point here is nature has called and made that determination. Women have the babies. Simple as that and if we are to protect those babies then those laws are going to affect women. There really is nothing to be done about that.

I can think of a single law though and it is right down this ally. If a woman chooses not to have an abortion THEN the man is screwed. He has ZERO choice in the matter. For the next 18 years, he is legally bound to care for that child or pay the woman.

If the man wants an ‘abortion’ or to be disconnected from the child there is no options for him while the woman simply gets to abort the child. Further, if he really wants the child and the woman decides she does not, oh well. Better luck next time. So yes, there are laws that exist right now that ‘opress’ the man and FORCE the man to carry a financial burden for the child that he does not want to be enslaved to for 18 years against his will.

And you know why that law exists for him while the mother gets off with an abortion and no consequence for it: basic biology. She has the child in her body and he does not, she gets that call where he gets 18 years without any choice in the matter.

A solid point.

 

[thanatos144]

Plenty of libertarians are pro-life. Plenty.

Are they pro-life for themselves, or against other people they don't know?

That is, do they have a moral position for themselves, or are they trying to force other people with laws?

The latter doesn't sound libertarian to me.

You do know that the libertarian party is extremely pro abortion right?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

what i am saying is that I find it uniquely ironic that neocons are pro-life and also pro foreign entaglements talking about protecting life. it's like being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty or vice versa.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

LP Chair: Not Pro-Life or Pro-Choice but Individual Choice | Libertarian Party

LP Chair: Not Pro-Life or Pro-Choice but Individual Choice
posted by Staff on Apr 20, 2012
WASHINGTON - In response to the abortion restrictions signed into law in Arizona this month, Libertarian Party Chair, Mark Hinkle, issued the following statement:

“Like so many others, Libertarians wrestle with the moral issues associated with abortion. While our party includes a significant number of people who describe themselves as pro-choice, nearly as many members describe themselves as pro-life. In my own view, however, there is no conflict: the best way to respect life is to prevent government from interfering with individual rights.



1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Abortion does not only affect woman. FAQ2 even provided example of how the laws can and do involve a man's choices too. Otherwise, you seem to be of the stance that men believe women to be subhuman or subordinates. That may be true of some, but your broad brush strokes lend you nothing in your argument. Which appears to be moving away from the libertarian belief on abortion and into a whole new realm.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is strictly a male v female fight? You should tell the Susan B Anthony List, they have the ridiculous idea that some women are pro life.

National Pro-Life Women Leaders | SBA-List

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You do know that some of those "bad laws" are actually proposed by women, don't you?

By the way, what makes a law that prohibits people like Gosnell from being able to kill babies who are born alive bad?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Making laws that punish people who violate other people's rights may not sound libertarian, but it is probably better than allowing blood feuds.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sure BUT rights can be defined. ‘Hurt’ cannot as that is a subjective term that affects everyone differently. That is why rights are better. They are not subjective as they are universal to all people.

That does not solve all the problems with defining and setting lines but it does clear up the inherent ambiguity that comes with an internal word like hurt.

 

[Circe]

What about the problem of "harm"? We know a lot of people carry on with tremendous assertions of entitlement about the supposed harm others are doing to them while they live their normal lives -- second-hand smoke, light pollution, noise pollution, livestock getting loose ---- I once had a guy come over here shrieking up at the window because a little peachick no bigger than a young hen got on his lawn; I ate him up and ran him off. A friend of mine had a neighbor come over bitterly complaining about her chickens supposedly getting on their lawn --- turned out it was wild turkeys from the forest. There's a lot of people who are just mean.

It's a real problem when people get weird about claiming other people are harming them in ways the majority would not think was a harm.