• 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
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.

I "lean right" on most issues, and tilt strongly right on fiscal issues.

I wouldn't assume someone leans right on social issues based on the disclosed lean in someone's panel.
 
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.

I can see your point, but if it comes to individual liberty (personal choice) though, Libertarians are walking the line when telling people how to live, much like the Dem/GOP does...
 
I "lean right" on most issues, and tilt strongly right on fiscal issues.

I wouldn't assume someone leans right on social issues based on the disclosed lean in someone's panel.

So why didn't you pick Conservative for your profile?
 
I say no. A Libertarian believes in individual choice, even if it is a choice they don't agree with.

A person who identifies Libertarian, Republican, Democrat or any other party you want to include can choose to support any side of any issue they wish. Regardless of a party's stance on an issue, it is OK to make your own decision on something. A person does not have to blindly follow something and let their choices be made for them.

So to answer your question, yes. And for that matter a Liberal can be Pro life too. Or a conservative can be pro choice.
 
How do Libertarians justify that the unborn have rights?

Libertarians believe in individual rights and some like me, believe the unborn have just as many rights and perhaps more because they cannot stand up for themselves and argue for their rights. Because they do not have a voice does not mean they do not have rights like anyone else.
 
A person who identifies Libertarian, Republican, Democrat or any other party you want to include can choose to support any side of any issue they wish. Regardless of a party's stance on an issue, it is OK to make your own decision on something. A person does not have to blindly follow something and let their choices be made for them.

So to answer your question, yes. And for that matter a Liberal can be Pro life too. Or a conservative can be pro choice.

Nicely done.
 
A person who identifies Libertarian, Republican, Democrat or any other party you want to include can choose to support any side of any issue they wish. Regardless of a party's stance on an issue, it is OK to make your own decision on something. A person does not have to blindly follow something and let their choices be made for them.

So to answer your question, yes. And for that matter a Liberal can be Pro life too. Or a conservative can be pro choice.

Agreed. Realize that such a view is very alien and difficult to grasp to the liberal / liberal progressive mind. I think it may be easier for some traditional Democrats and small government Republicans to grasp which may be why Libertarians typically join the Republican party when running in national elections. It's perhaps more tolerated by the GOP as well, whereas these new liberal progressives have no tolerance for such individualism.
 
I say no. A Libertarian believes in individual choice, even if it is a choice they don't agree with.

Absolutely. As I described in an old thread discussing this issue:

It's absolutely possible to be a Pro-Life Libertariand or a Pro-Choice libertarian and it to be completely and fully consistent with all of ones views.

This is because it matters ENTIRELY on ones personal views and opinions as to when a life should legally be protected.

If ones personal view is that the life does not begin in a fashion that should be "protected" until it's actually birthed or something ike the 3rd trimester, then it makes TOTAL sense from a libertarian mindset to believe that the government has absolutely ZERO business in interjecting itself into the private business and services that a woman engages in.

If ones personal view is that the life begins at the point of conception and that it is deserving of rights just as any other person, then it makes TOTAL sense from a libertarian mindset to believe the government has a responsability to interject itself because one of the few things libertarian philosophy accepts as a reasonable use of government is for the protection of forceful infringments of our rights by others.

Save for the most anarchistic of libertarians, most recognize that the government does have a role in general protection...be it federal or state. Most don't have an issue with the notion of police, or more specifically most don't have an issue with the notion that if you're beating and/or kill your child you could potentially be arrested. If the view is that a child in the womb is no different than the child out of it then it's no more inconsistent with Libertarian philosophy to be against that abortion then it would be to for punishing physical child abuse.

The answer can only be no if you're so egotistical and unbending to believe your personal opinion of something that has no 100%, unquestioned, definitive answer is the ONLY one any person could EVER have and thus EVERYONES decision must come from the stand point you hold.

It depends entire on said libertarian's belief as to when a human life begins and has rights.
 
Have you read any of my posts in this thread? If not, the answer you seek is in them.

Post 36?

But I am just curious about why you identify with the right.

Other then this thread my only interaction with you was about Kelly Ayote and the 2016 Senate elections. You seem rational and respectful. You also seemed to have a good understanding of NH, probably because you live that way.

Only other thing, is that horse California Chrome in your avatar pic because if so, I may have to look down on you a little :lol: :2wave:
 
Post 36?

But I am just curious about why you identify with the right.

Other then this thread my only interaction with you was about Kelly Ayote and the 2016 Senate elections. You seem rational and respectful. You also seemed to have a good understanding of NH, probably because you live that way.

Only other thing, is that horse California Chrome in your avatar pic because if so, I may have to look down on you a little :lol: :p

I already said why I identified myself as right. Could be post #36, not sure. I am fiscally conservative, very right leaning on that.

I live in NH which is why I have a good understanding of it, and I worked on Ayotte's campaign in 2012 even though I didn't vote for her in the primary.

No, that's Tres Borrachos in my avatar. He's a racehorse also in training at Los Alamitos (where CC is based). Tres ran in the Derby, I think in 2006. Didn't fare well but he has won over $1 million in his career. I have a soft spot in my heart for him. Still running at 9 because he's a gelding.

Oh no, are you one of those anti-Chromies?;)
 
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.

And I was challanging your statement:
...no other Libertarian would say one view is wrong because he/she has a different one.
as being incorrect. As libertarians, we don't seek to use force of law unless we can show harm to another/violation of another's rights/liberties. This is why in the case of abortion we can have a divide that does allow for libertarians to be politically anti-abortion. Some see the ZEF as a individual who has rights and liberties. Others, like myself, may hold that view but recognize that our view is subjective and even religiously based and as such we do not have the right to impose that view on someone else by force of law. Others still, simply don't see the ZEF as an individual and thus the choice is up to the mother/woman

I can see your point, but if it comes to individual liberty (personal choice) though, Libertarians are walking the line when telling people how to live, much like the Dem/GOP does...

While I can see your point it is a little different with libertarians in that we're just as willing to tell people how to live while at the same time leaving them the freedom and liberty to make their own choices as long as those choices do not violate someone else's freedoms. liberties or rights.
 
I already said why I identified myself as right. Could be post #36, not sure. I am fiscally conservative, very right leaning on that.

I live in NH which is why I have a good understanding of it, and I worked on Ayotte's campaign in 2012 even though I didn't vote for her in the primary.

No, that's Tres Borrachos in my avatar. He's a racehorse also in training at Los Alamitos (where CC is based). Tres ran in the Derby, I think in 2006. Didn't fare well but he has won over $1 million in his career. I have a soft spot in my heart for him. Still running at 9 because he's a gelding.

Oh no, are you one of those anti-Chromies?;)

No I was pulling for California Chrome, but that interview after the race with the owner was just painful to watch.
 
No I was pulling for California Chrome, but that interview after the race with the owner was just painful to watch.

Yeah, poor Coburn needs a little help in the PR category. ;)

I was very sad about CC. I really enjoy that horse. I look forward to seeing him in the BC Classic in the Fall.
 
I say no. A Libertarian believes in individual choice, even if it is a choice they don't agree with.

Of course they can. What sort of stupid assertation is it to claim that libertarians couldn't be pro-life? It's like saying an atheist cannot be pro life.
 
And I was challanging your statement:

as being incorrect. As libertarians, we don't seek to use force of law unless we can show harm to another/violation of another's rights/liberties. This is why in the case of abortion we can have a divide that does allow for libertarians to be politically anti-abortion. Some see the ZEF as a individual who has rights and liberties. Others, like myself, may hold that view but recognize that our view is subjective and even religiously based and as such we do not have the right to impose that view on someone else by force of law. Others still, simply don't see the ZEF as an individual and thus the choice is up to the mother/woman

Not sure what you're "challenging". I never said anything otherwise.
 
Seems reasonable. Almost seems like Libertarian really doesn't mean anything except to those who claim it and knows what it means. Perhaps they claim Libertarian so they don't have to claim something else like Republican.

Or Democrat.
 
Of course they can. What sort of stupid assertation is it to claim that libertarians couldn't be pro-life? It's like saying an atheist cannot be pro life.

Okay I have to ask, what does Libertarian Left mean on your profile?
 
I don't debate in a circle.

If you're accusing me of a tautology, identify it. Else this is nothing but a baseless assertion in order to avoid addressing the fact that you were wrong.
 
Okay I have to ask, what does Libertarian Left mean on your profile?

It means just that. Libertarianism isn't synonymous with anarchy, and there are libertarian philosophies which also argue for the use of government in various social constructs such as healthcare, unemployment, welfare, etc.
 
It means just that. Libertarianism isn't synonymous with anarchy, and there are libertarian philosophies which also argue for the use of government in various social constructs such as healthcare, unemployment, welfare, etc.

Okay I am intrigued... continue.
 
Back
Top Bottom