• 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
tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wasnt trying to debate you, it was a comment supporting why it seems unLibertarian to object to abortion for other people. The points I made are directly related to making abortion illegal...but often people's knee-jerk reactions are all about 'the baby!' and not the entire big picture.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...


See the bold? Of course you have to accept it. The wording itself (your own wording) should make it very clear that it's not up to you to accept or decide what a woman does with her body. A Libertarian should certainly respect a person's sovereignty over their own body. As for the unborn....they clearly have no rights....there is no way to accord them any rights that would not grossly infringe on a woman's inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So of course, it's up to her alone.

As for the second part, that's just silly. Rape and murder clearly infringe on the 3 inalienable rights I just listed. That statement is just like saying, "I have no argument!"

Yes, people do have different opinions on the SCOTUS decision that examined and denied personhood and rights to the unborn. I respect people that would CHOOSE not to have abortions. It's when they would demand, believing they have the right to do so, that others take the risks of pregnancy and childbirth against their will that I object to.

Choice seems like a reasonable position for Libertarians. Obviously from the posts in this thread, not everyone agrees.
 
Lursa said:
See the bold? Of course you have to accept it. The wording itself (your own wording) should make it very clear that it's not up to you to accept or decide what a woman does with her body. A Libertarian should certainly respect a person's sovereignty over their own body. As for the unborn....they clearly have no rights....there is no way to accord them any rights that would not grossly infringe on a woman's inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So of course, it's up to her alone.

As for the second part, that's just silly. Rape and murder clearly infringe on the 3 inalienable rights I just listed. That statement is just like saying, "I have no argument!"

Yes, people do have different opinions on the SCOTUS decision that examined and denied personhood and rights to the unborn. I respect people that would CHOOSE not to have abortions. It's when they would demand, believing they have the right to do so, that others take the risks of pregnancy and childbirth against their will that I object to.

Choice seems like a reasonable position for Libertarians. Obviously from the posts in this thread, not everyone agrees.
Click to expand...

I asked you a question. To what week do I have to support abortion for you to consider me a libertarian? Am I understanding it correctly that we all should support the right for a woman to abort up to and including on delivery day otherwise we're all inconsistent with libertarian principles?

The unborn do not have legal rights (in this country), but that does not mean that they don't deserve rights or life. It's a philosophical question, not a legal one. Legality can change with the movement of a pen. There is nothing special about being pushed through a vagina that suddenly kickstarts life. The child is obviously alive at some point before delivery day, and when that point is is up for debate. Most Americans (and libertarians) do not support 3rd trimester elective abortions. Your attitude seems to be that there should be no restrictions for any reason because her right to delay her decision as long as she wants is obviously more important than a human being's right to life. Anyone who disagrees with you? => NOT LIBERTARIAN
 
Ockham said:
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.
Click to expand...

Voice isnt a criteria for being a person and having rights.

Generally and currently, the law says 'being born.' According rights to the unborn would enable the govt to grossly infringe on the born's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So then Libertarians, like anyone else, need to examine how they value the unborn and the born. In practice, they cannot be treated equally.
 
Lursa said:
The fetus has no rights...that's already a fact.
Click to expand...

You really don't know much about libertarianism, do you? Libertarians don't just look at the law and determine rights according to it. Hell, no one really does.

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

The term person is a legal construct and has already been altered since the countries founding. You aren't going to get anywhere with libertarians bringing it up.
 
Lursa said:
Voice isnt a criteria for being a person and having rights.

Generally and currently, the law says 'being born.' According rights to the unborn would enable the govt to grossly infringe on the born's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So then Libertarians, like anyone else, need to examine how they value the unborn and the born. In practice, they cannot be treated equally.
Click to expand...

Being born doesn't give the individual (the baby in this case) any more voice than if it was still in the womb. The unborn in my view of Libertarian ideology has just as many rights as the born and as I've already stated. If an individuals rights cannot be treated equally, the law then fails, or it's discriminatory and should be overturned.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I asked you a question. To what week do I have to support abortion for you to consider me a libertarian? Am I understanding it correctly that we all should support the right for a woman to abort up to and including on delivery day otherwise we're all inconsistent with libertarian principles?

The unborn do not have legal rights (in this country), but that does not mean that they don't deserve rights or life. It's a philosophical question, not a legal one. Legality can change with the movement of a pen. There is nothing special about being pushed through a vagina that suddenly kickstarts life. The child is obviously alive at some point before delivery day, and when that point is is up for debate. Most Americans (and libertarians) do not support 3rd trimester elective abortions. Your attitude seems to be that there should be no restrictions for any reason because her right to delay her decision as long as she wants is obviously more important than a human being's right to life. Anyone who disagrees with you? => NOT LIBERTARIAN
Click to expand...

You are asking me 'when?' My opinion is until viability...when the fetus can live outside the mother. Up until that time, no one can act on the fetus (against her will) without grossly infringning on her rights. Including her own life.

And philosophically it comes down this: which do you value you more? The unborn or the born?

Because in practice you cannot afford both equal rights and then treat each equally. For the unborn to be entitled to the right to life and a potential future, you would be demanding the woman's rights to the same are secondary. SHe becomes (once again) a 2nd class citizen in society.
 
Ockham said:
Being born doesn't give the individual (the baby in this case) any more voice than if it was still in the womb. The unborn in my view of Libertarian ideology has just as many rights as the born and as I've already stated. If an individuals rights cannot be treated equally, the law then fails, or it's discriminatory and should be overturned.
Click to expand...

They cannot be treated equally, so you are avoiding that point.

And of course the born baby has more 'voice' once born. It immediately makes demands on society...crying, demanding to be fed, demanding attention.

THe born can individually act on society and be acted on by society. The unborn cannot.
 
Lursa said:
I wasnt trying to debate you, it was a comment supporting why it seems unLibertarian to object to abortion for other people.
Click to expand...

It is exactly as "unlibertarian" to object to abortion as it is to object to theft or rape or the homicide of a born human.

Libertarian is not synonymous with anarchist.
 
Lursa said:
They cannot be treated equally, so you are avoiding that point.
Click to expand...

That "point" is bull****. Just because you don't want to treat humans equally doesn't make it impossible.
 
Lursa said:
I wasnt trying to debate you, it was a comment supporting why it seems unLibertarian to object to abortion for other people. The points I made are directly related to making abortion illegal...but often people's knee-jerk reactions are all about 'the baby!' and not the entire big picture.
Click to expand...

Sorry, can't help you. I don't have those knee jerk reactions and I never said anything about the legality of abortion, nor do I have ANY interest in discussing that, in this thread or anywhere else.
 
Lursa said:
You are asking me 'when?' My opinion is until viability...when the fetus can live outside the mother. Up until that time, no one can act on the fetus (against her will) without grossly infringning on her rights. Including her own life.

And philosophically it comes down this: which do you value you more? The unborn or the born?

Because in practice you cannot afford both equal rights and then treat each equally. For the unborn to be entitled to the right to life and a potential future, you would be demanding the woman's rights to the same are secondary. SHe becomes (once again) a 2nd class citizen in society.
Click to expand...

No, the question is not whom I value more, it's which right I value more. You for some reason think that a woman's "right" to delay her decision as long as she wants and to be comfortable trumps someone else's right to life. We're not comparing life to life here, we're comparing comfort to life. If it were life to life I'd say the woman every single time.

Neither of us will be changing our minds based on this conversation, but the only thing I really want to get across is that you do NOT speak for all Libertarians, and it is NOT inconsistent with Libertarian principles to value the life of a child over the comfort of a woman.

(And on a side note, it doesn't really make sense to base so much of your argument on what the law currently is. We're debating what it should be; we already know what it is.)
 
Lursa said:
You are asking me 'when?' My opinion is until viability...when the fetus can live outside the mother. Up until that time, no one can act on the fetus (against her will) without grossly infringning on her rights. Including her own life.
Click to expand...

If your argument is that the woman has a right to her body and thus abortion is permissible then the argument you just presented is absurd and nonsensical. You can't say on one hand that she has a right to abort because of the right to her body, and on the other, put a time limit on it. Sorry, but you position just doesn't make a lick of sense.

And philosophically it comes down this: which do you value you more? The unborn or the born?
Click to expand...

Actually, that is far too simple. For me, I value both equally, but when it comes to determining the legally of it I look at what is required of the woman to maintain the life of the unborn. My reason for not outlawing it is not that I don't value the unborn or that somehow I value them less, but that the consequence of outlawing it is not something I can find myself in agreement with.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
No, the question is not whom I value more, it's which right I value more. You for some reason think that a woman's "right" to delay her decision as long as she wants and to be comfortable trumps someone else's right to life. We're not comparing life to life here, we're comparing comfort to life. If it were life to life I'd say the woman every single time.

Neither of us will be changing our minds based on this conversation, but the only thing I really want to get across is that you do NOT speak for all Libertarians, and it is NOT inconsistent with Libertarian principles to value the life of a child over the comfort of a woman.

(And on a side note, it doesn't really make sense to base so much of your argument on what the law currently is. We're debating what it should be; we already know what it is.)
Click to expand...


I never said I spoke for all Libertarians...the entire thread is basically how no one can. :doh

I gave you MY opinion and supported it. And you just implied that the life of the unborn is more important than the right to life of the mother. You cannot ensure the pregnancy nor childbirth will not kill the woman....thousands die or nearly die every year....obviously it is not predictable or preventable. NO ONE should have the right to demand a woman take that risk if she does not want to. It's not even rare...we all probably know women who died from either...I know of 2.

I also disagree that 'life' is more important than 'liberty' and the 'pursuit of happiness.' That is not a fact and not a given at all, 'philosophically.'
 
Lursa said:
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)
Click to expand...
Neither position (pro-life or pro-choice) opposes the libertarian philosophy.
 
I fail to see what one has to do with the other. My own distaste for abortion doesn't give me the right to impose my will on others.
 
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...
Life is a basic right, just like freedom of speech, only more basic. Some people don't want to accept it but there are an infinite number of situations where rights butt up against each other.
 
Lursa said:
Laws controlling and enforcing illegal abortion mean bigger govt. and a huge intrusion into the privacy of Americans.
Click to expand...
Many laws fit that description.
 
Lursa said:
I never said I spoke for all Libertarians...the entire thread is basically how no one can. :doh

I gave you MY opinion and supported it. And you just implied that the life of the unborn is more important than the right to life of the mother. You cannot ensure the pregnancy nor childbirth will not kill the woman....thousands die or nearly die every year....obviously it is not predictable or preventable. NO ONE should have the right to demand a woman take that risk if she does not want to. It's not even rare...we all probably know women who died from either...I know of 2.

I also disagree that 'life' is more important than 'liberty' and the 'pursuit of happiness.' That is not a fact and not a given at all, 'philosophically.'
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
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....
Click to expand...
Lursa said:
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)
Click to expand...

Let's not get childish, you know what you said. Valuing the right to life over the right to comfort is not anti-libertarian. Is it not anti-libertarian to force women to take care of their born children? How dare we demand that they give their children food, water, and medical care. It's like we're making mothers 2nd class citizens and violating their right to their pursuit of happiness.
 
mpg said:
Life is a basic right, just like freedom of speech, only more basic. Some people don't want to accept it but there are an infinite number of situations where rights butt up against each other.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. And the born are entitled to it. If you believe the unborn are as well, then when the state protects those rights, they will infringe on the born's right to life. There is no quarantee of surviving birth...or pregnancy or childbirth. The state does not have that power. That is why the individual should have the choice to assume those risks...not the state.
 
maquiscat said:
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.
Click to expand...
You're confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarianism firmly believes in using the force of law to protect rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom