• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can a Libertarian be Pro Life?

Can a libertarian be pro life?


  • Total voters
    45
I say no. A Libertarian believes in individual choice, even if it is a choice they don't agree with.

Yes, we positively can, and no, it's not logically inconsistent. Libertarianism doesn't mean you can do whatever the **** you want with zero consequences. Your freedom ends where someone else's freedom and life begins. You can not simply kill someone just because you don't want to deal with them. That's not liberty.

Everybody here opposes murder, the only argument in the pro-life/pro-choice debate is at what point killing a kid becomes murder.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, what in what I wrote makes you say this to me as if I didn't already know this?



Not if said act of force is a legal right. IMO the only justified use of force is in self-defense/retaliation which one could argue, say in the case of the survival of the mother, is an act of self-defense.

A fetus has no legal rights, a pregnant woman does.
I don't debate in a circle.
 
there wasnt any taxation during jesus's time.what else do you expect him to advise people to do to share the wealth ?

l claim he was social democrat.
That's a major assumption.
 
I say no. A Libertarian believes in individual choice, even if it is a choice they don't agree with.

I don't think individual choice extends to killing others. If you believe abortion to be wrongful killing, then calling that an "individual choice" would be like calling raping one's own children an "individual choice."

"Oh, I think its wrong to rape your kids and I'd never do it, but that's my choice and people should have the right to choose for themselves."

Hopefully now you see the problem with your logic. Libertarianism does not imply anarchy.
 
Just because of believes in a certain ideology doesn't mean one must subscribe to all aspects of the ideology. Banning abortion is not a libertarian position, but a libertarian can hold that position none the less.

Would they make up something to make it conform to their libertarian beliefs or just recognize that they were taking a position in opposition of their beliefs? ( would respect the 2nd)
 
There isn't an actual Libertarian stance on abortion. This issue is actually as controversial among Libertarians as it is between Democrats and Republicans. It depends on who's rights you think are being violated: the fetus or the woman. If a Libertarian believes that the fetus is already a human being, even if not quite finished developing, they likely fall on the pro-life side. If they believe that it is still part of a woman's body, and therefore not a separate person yet, they are on the pro-choice side.

The fetus has no rights...that's already a fact.

It is human, but that is not a person and only persons have rights.

So the libertarian would have to be pro-choice *if* conforming to their political beliefs.

But no one says people have to 100% conform to their political beliefs....
 
Life is the most precious right of all, and libertarianism is about protecting rights. Libertarianism is NOT about making everything legal; that's anarchism.

I have not seen that right elevated above liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Is it in the Constitution? Somewhere else in US legal code?

Because not everyone agrees with that. So I'd want to see legal support and even then I guess people could disagree personally on what is most important to them.
 
Last edited:
How does being pro-life contradict favoring small government?

Laws controlling and enforcing illegal abortion mean bigger govt. and a huge intrusion into the privacy of Americans.
 
Of course a Libertarian can be pro-life. It's difficult for me to even think that was a serious question. The assumption that a Liberal, or Conservative or Libertarian must agree with their party's view 100% is moronic. Libertarians are for individual liberty. Where abortions come in, I agree with Libertarians that the government should keep their nose out of the issue. From an individual perspective I favor the rights of the unborn in MOST cases. There are cases where abortion can and should be considered. That does not change my pro-life stance. What's obvious is that the OP and author don't know liberty, don't live liberty and therefore struggles to grasp the concept of individual freedom and accountability.

How do Libertarians justify that the unborn have rights?
 
A true Libertarian would also not tell people they aren't supposed to have religious beliefs. I have none, but I respect that others do. That's the true Libertarian way. We are all entitled to choice, and the government doesn't have a right to tell us what to think.

I have never ever heard anyone tell people (Americans) that they cant have religious views. The issue is when the religious try to impose those beliefs on other people or into laws.

If you support pro-choice, you are fully able to personally practice your own religious beliefs and allow others to do the same. If you are pro-life (and religious) then you support forcing your religious beliefs on others...which we all know is wrong and unAmerican.
 
I just don't understand how Libertarians reconcile their beliefs on abortion esp on this site. I see a lot of Libertarian leans right. When Libertarians talk about abortion on here a lot of them use the same emotional appeals as my far left ideological cousins use on gun control.

If you honestly do not understand, then a brief synopsis:

Libertarians are not anarchists - they believe that the government exists to defend our rights. Including our rights to life, liberty, and property. The real question in the abortion topic, then, is not whether or not it is right for government to constrain a womans (or anyones') choice - but when it is appropriate to do so. I would constrain, for example, a woman's choice to steal from me, or a mans' choice to rape my wife, and still be completely within the boundaries of libertarian principles because I am then using government to protect my right to property, my wifes' right to ownership of her own body, etc. So, if an unborn child is not a child, then the libertarian must (if he or she is to be true to their principles) accept that government does not have any right to interfere with the womans' freedom of action. But if an unborn child is a child, then the libertarian must require that government defend its' right to life, and constrain the choices of those who would abuse those rights. Ron and Rand Paul, for example, are two notable Libertarian leaders who hold this position.


As for those who try to split the baby, and say that they are personally against abortion, but not against it's banning - that is (imo) an untenable position. It's like saying (from the perspective that an unborn child is a child) that you are personally against slavery or child-rape, but don't think that the government should have a hand in reducing that kind of behavior.
 
Last edited:
That's a major assumption.

l read these books many times and couldnt find any clue that proves god was libertarian capitalist
 
The fetus has no rights...that's already a fact.

It is human, but that is not a person and only persons have rights.

So the libertarian would have to be pro-choice *if* conforming to their political beliefs.

But no one says people have to 100% conform to their political beliefs....

The entire pro-life/pro-choice debate comes down to a matter of time lines. It comes down to when that individual beliefs life begins. Do I have to accept a woman having a third trimester abortion to be Libertarian to you? To what week in a pregnancy must a Libertarian support abortion in order to fit your narrow definition of libertarianism? 17th? 22nd?

You don't speak for all libertarians. Defining when life begins and when it doesn't isn't an inherent feature of libertarianism. You've taken the single most debated topic in the Libertarian community and declared your view as the only valid one.
I have not seen that right elevated above liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Is it in the Constitution? Somewhere else in US legal code?

Because not everyone agrees with that. So I'd want to see legal support and even then I guess people could disagree personally on what is most important to them.

Rape and murder aren't banned by the constitution so I guess that's cool too right?

We know what the current legal situation is, but that's not the debate. The debate is what the legal situation SHOULD be.
 
Last edited:
If that liberterian proves that abortion is murder - yes.
 
Laws controlling and enforcing illegal abortion mean bigger govt. and a huge intrusion into the privacy of Americans.

That's great, but the poll question wasn't about laws and privacy voilations. It was about Libertarians being pro-life versus pro-choice. I'd suggest you read the posts in this thread from Libertarians (including myself) before you try to debate me on an issue on which I'm not holding an opposing view from you. It's a waste of both of our times.
 
If you honestly do not understand, then a brief synopsis:

Libertarians are not anarchists - they believe that the government exists to defend our rights. Including our rights to life, liberty, and property. The real question in the abortion topic, then, is not whether or not it is right for government to constrain a womans (or anyones') choice - but when it is appropriate to do so. I would constrain, for example, a woman's choice to steal from me, or a mans' choice to rape my wife, and still be completely within the boundaries of libertarian principles because I am then using government to protect my right to property, my wifes' right to ownership of her own body, etc. So, if an unborn child is not a child, then the libertarian must (if he or she is to be true to their principles) accept that government does not have any right to interfere with the womans' freedom of action. But if an unborn child is a child, then the libertarian must require that government defend its' right to life, and constrain the choices of those who would abuse those rights. Ron and Rand Paul, for example, are two notable Libertarian leaders who hold this position.


As for those who try to split the baby, and say that they are personally against abortion, but not against it's banning - that is (imo) an untenable position. It's like saying (from the perspective that an unborn child is a child) that you are personally against slavery or child-rape, but don't think that the government should have a hand in reducing that kind of behavior.

Excellent post.
 
I have never ever heard anyone tell people (Americans) that they cant have religious views. The issue is when the religious try to impose those beliefs on other people or into laws.

If you support pro-choice, you are fully able to personally practice your own religious beliefs and allow others to do the same. If you are pro-life (and religious) then you support forcing your religious beliefs on others...which we all know is wrong and unAmerican.

See my previous post. Why are you wasting your time posting all of this to me? Please move on to someone who has a different opinion on abortion than you do.
 
I didn't say a Libertarian can't be religious. I said a Libertarian would never tell another person what he should believe. Your poll is about what people believe (pro-life verus pro-choice). Libertarians can be one or the other, and no other Libertarian would say one view is wrong because he/she has a different one.

Not exactly. I will still tell you that abortion is wrong. I simply won't look to the law to enforce that belief. Being libertarian doesn't mean that you stop trying to correct that which you feel is wrong. It means that you use social pressure to do it not force of law. Protests, education programs, picketing, etc.

Libertarians believe in boldly sovereignty and are opposed to treating people like property, so yes Libertarians must by definition be pro-life. A pro-choice Libertarian isn't a Libertarian at all, just a lier and a hypocrite.

Nice try, no go. The belief of when a ZEF becomes a person ranges greatly even among conservatives yet alone libertarians. There really is no argument about after the birth. It's prior to the birth that the issue arises, usually in regards to viability. If you don't believe that a ZEF qualifies as a seperate sentient being, at least until after birth, then you are wholly in line with the concept of bodily (I'm pretty sure that is the word you intended) sovereignty on the part of the woman because the ZEF is not an individual to have that same sovereignty. There are indeed libertarians who believe that the ZEF is an individual and thus entitled to the same protections as those already born. They would also be well within the libertarian mindset by being anti-abortion politically. Then you have those who believe such, myself and Lizzie for example, who recognize that our beliefs come from a place that does not have enough empirical evidence to allow us to force the view on others.

No, because Liberal is a lean, not a party.

Libertarian is both a lean and a party. Two separate things that use the same word. Sort of like fag. A fag is both a cigarette and a homosexual. Two separate things that use the same word.
Then you're pro choice on the topic of eyelid piercings. Nothing wrong with that. Im pro choice on tattoos while I don't want one for myself; that means im pro choice, not pro clear skin.

There is a major difference here. Most people who are pro-life personally are still against abortions overall, even by other people. They may take other actions such as protests to get the practice stopped. They just don't believe in the force of law thus making them pro-choice politically. You example is misleading in that you do not (I am guessing by your words) otherwise try to get people to not get tattoos. You don't feel that tattoos are wrong, just wrong for you. Your example would have worked if you honestly felt that no one should get a tattoo, even while still allowing them to make that choice.

there wasnt any taxation during jesus's time.what else do you expect him to advise people to do to share the wealth ?

l claim he was social democrat.

Um yes there was. The Bible even mentions them. IIRC, Zachia (sp?) the man who climbed the fig tree to see Jesus was a tax collector.

modern times make " charity " a responsilibity of taxation

Which has nothing to do with your statement that there was no taxation in Jesus' time.

"voyager likes this"

"haymarket likes this"

:yawn:

Obvious bait thread is obvious.

You don't have to agree with someone's point to like the point that they made or to like that they worded their argument well. Obvious bait post is obvious.
 
Not exactly. I will still tell you that abortion is wrong. I simply won't look to the law to enforce that belief. Being libertarian doesn't mean that you stop trying to correct that which you feel is wrong. It means that you use social pressure to do it not force of law. Protests, education programs, picketing, etc.

You think abortion is wrong. I respect that. I never mentioned the law. The poll never asked if Libertarians who are anti-abortion should simply roll over and play dead. It asked if a Libertarian can be pro-life or not. My answer was yes, a Libertarian can be pro-life and a Libertarian can also be pro-choice.

I also never suggested that someone who is anti-abortion shouldn't protest, picket, etc. I also never said that I would tell you that your position is wrong.
 
You don't have to agree with someone's point to like the point that they made or to like that they worded their argument well. Obvious bait post is obvious.

If you say so. "Liking" a standard issue haymarket anti-libertarian boiler plate rant is a good indication to me that as a libertarian, nothing one of us could say to OP would be treated with any respect.
 
Ron and Rand Paul, for example, are two notable Libertarian leaders who hold this position.

As is usually the case, I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Paul, or now I suppose I should say the Drs. Paul.

I believe in human rights and I believe we the people create the state to protect human rights against aggression. I believe that every human is equal and should be equal in the eyes of the laws we create.

If every human should be equal, and every human has a right to life, then abortion can not be anything but aggression by one party against another, the very thing we create a state to prohibit and punish in order to protect human rights.

This is true even in the most minimal night watchman state; laws against homicide are the bedrock of human civilization.
 
You think abortion is wrong. I respect that. I never mentioned the law. The poll never asked if Libertarians who are anti-abortion should simply roll over and play dead. It asked if a Libertarian can be pro-life or not. My answer was yes, a Libertarian can be pro-life and a Libertarian can also be pro-choice.

I also never suggested that someone who is anti-abortion shouldn't protest, picket, etc. I also never said that I would tell you that your position is wrong.

But this is my point. Even as a libertarian, we can, and often do, tell others that their position is wrong. The key difference between libertarians and liberals/conservatives (as a rule, not as a totality) is that there are way fewer things that we believe need a law to enforce such a view.
 
since i am a constitutional libertarian, i tend to look at my right lean, as -- states powers.

since JAMES MADISON states that.... the life's, liberty, and property of the people, are a state power and not a federal power.

Most of the "leans right" I assumed meant they leaned right on social issues... But again without asking someone you just have to guess from their posts.
 
But this is my point. Even as a libertarian, we can, and often do, tell others that their position is wrong. The key difference between libertarians and liberals/conservatives (as a rule, not as a totality) is that there are way fewer things that we believe need a law to enforce such a view.

You as a Libertarian tell others their position on abortion is wrong. I don't tell people their position on abortion is wrong. That isn't the same as giving points to possibly convince the other Libertarian that he may want to rethink his position. But that has nothing to do with laws, nor saying "You're wrong". I was talking about positions, in this case specifically, abortion.
 
Back
Top Bottom