• 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
RabidAlpaca said:
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.
Click to expand...

WHy are you shouting? And lying? I never said anything about 'comfort.' WHy are you putting words in my mouth and making assumptions?

And when are women FORCED to take care of born children? They can give them up to the state. You are just running off the rails here. Please calm down and if you have something constructive, let me know.
 
mpg said:
with our core beliefs, the same way that we justify everyone else's rights
Click to expand...

Fine, I never said they couldnt...I just gave my opinion and supported it legally, morally, and philosophically (according to RabidAlpaca who seems to have gone rabid).

If you can support your beliefs the same, more power to you.
 
Lursa said:
WHy are you shouting? And lying? I never said anything about 'comfort.' WHy are you putting words in my mouth and making assumptions.

And when are women FORCED to take care of born children? They can give them up to the state. You are just running off the rails here. Please calm down and if you have something constructive, let me know.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. You straight up lie saying you never said libertarians can't keep consistent with their beliefs and be pro-life, and I give you a few quotes where you did, and instead of addressing this you freak out about text sizing and my use of the word comfort? (I've used the word comfort for the past 3 posts, and I never said you did.)

You do realize that on the internet you can't determine one's emotional state, right? Increasing the size of text can sometimes be used to draw attention to a sentence. Whatever, let's just end this, you seem to be in misdirection dodge mode right now anyway.

Lursa said:
Fine, I never said they couldnt...I just gave my opinion and supported it legally, morally, and philosophically (according to RabidAlpaca who seems to have gone rabid).


If you can support your beliefs the same, more power to you.
Click to expand...

Posting quotes where you lied is being rabid? You really should look up that word.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, it can, and I hope someday the legal definition of "person" will be more comprehensive.

Meanwhile, stating repeatedly that those who are pro-life care more about the unborn than about the woman remains untrue but will continue to be repeated.
 
maquiscat said:
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
Click to expand...
Even if someone says an adult is an individual who has rights and liberties, that's still 100% subjective.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So let me get this straight. You straight up lie saying you never said libertarians can't keep consistent with their beliefs and be pro-life, and I give you a few quotes where you did, and instead of addressing this you freak out about text sizing and my use of the word comfort? (I've used the word comfort for the past 3 posts, and I never said you did.)

You do realize that on the internet you can't determine one's emotional state, right? Whatever, let's just end this, you seem to be in misdirection dodge mode right now anyway.



Posting quotes where you lied is being rabid? You really should look up that word.
Click to expand...

So you are choosing to attack my phrasing in retreat from the issue of value and rights for the unborn, which is what that opinion, for Libertarian or anyone else, seems to base their position on?

M'k.

And you are quoting my opinion on Libertarians where *my opinion* of Libertarians is that recognizing rights for the unborn does not conform to that platform. I still disagree that it does but obviously others DO choose to take that position.

There was no lying. This is actually the focus of the entire thread, answering the OP's question :doh
 
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...
Those are valid opinions but they aren't necessarily libertarian.
 
mpg said:
Even if someone says an adult is an individual who has rights and liberties, that's still 100% subjective.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is, and as Boomers continue to geezer out, this is going to be argued, I predict, in horrifying ways.
 
mpg said:
Those are valid opinions but they aren't necessarily libertarian.
Click to expand...

It seems there isnt agreement on that here in the thread focused on that discussion.
 
Lursa said:
It seems there isnt agreement on that here in the thread focused on that discussion.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to argue in favor of the pro-choice position, prove that pro-life libertarians are hypocrites, or something else?
 
mpg said:
Are you trying to argue in favor of the pro-choice position, prove that pro-life libertarians are hypocrites, or something else?
Click to expand...

I have no interest in proving anything about Libertarians, I thought the thread was about exploring their views on abortion within that platform?

That is the answer to what you quoted.
 
mpg said:
You're confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarianism firmly believes in using the force of law to protect rights.
Click to expand...

Not confused at all. I am a strong advocate of using force of law to allow people to do as they wish and allow whom they wish onto all their private property even if it is a business. And I will be the first one there protesting said business when they do discriminate for whatever reason. Except shoplifting....they can discriminate against the shoplifter.

The whole problem with the abortion issue is determining the factor(s) that makes a human a "higher life form" and not just another animal. When are these factor obtained? Are the present even before the joining of the egg and sperm? We, in all honesty, do not know. Many of us, through our faith and religion, believe that we have an answer. Even those who are atheist run both ways on the topic. Whatever it is that makes us believe as a race that killing one another in cold blood should be a crime, and that using one another as a food source is that factor(s) that we need to determine and when it occurs. We all seem to instinctively attribute this to a newborn and continue that status throughout the lifespan of the individual. But not so much to a ZEF. This is less common.

If I don't find my evidence concrete enough and empirical enough, then I don't have that right to force my belief by law onto another. I simply can't prove that a ZEF is the equivalent of a newborn. So as such my libertarian sensibilities tell me that I can try to convince people to believe as I do and act accordingly, but I cannot remove the right of the mother to end her pregnancy. Which BTW is her only right in the matter. She doesn't actually have the right to an abortion per se'. Abortion happens to be the only safe (relatively speaking) method available to her. That's a whole other thread though.

mpg said:
Even if someone says an adult is an individual who has rights and liberties, that's still 100% subjective.
Click to expand...

We can go on to say that humans having any real existence outside of my highly vivid imagination is 100% subjective. How existential do you want to get? Adult hood is subjective. Not everyone achieves it at the same time. So 18 to be an adult is a legal fiction. In the end we have to start from one of two premises: society trumps individualism, or individualism trumps society. Any rights there after are dependent upon which premise you choose.
 
maquiscat said:
Not confused at all. I am a strong advocate of using force of law to allow people to do as they wish and allow whom they wish onto all their private property even if it is a business. And I will be the first one there protesting said business when they do discriminate for whatever reason. Except shoplifting....they can discriminate against the shoplifter.

The whole problem with the abortion issue is determining the factor(s) that makes a human a "higher life form" and not just another animal. When are these factor obtained? Are the present even before the joining of the egg and sperm? We, in all honesty, do not know. Many of us, through our faith and religion, believe that we have an answer. Even those who are atheist run both ways on the topic. Whatever it is that makes us believe as a race that killing one another in cold blood should be a crime, and that using one another as a food source is that factor(s) that we need to determine and when it occurs. We all seem to instinctively attribute this to a newborn and continue that status throughout the lifespan of the individual. But not so much to a ZEF. This is less common.

If I don't find my evidence concrete enough and empirical enough, then I don't have that right to force my belief by law onto another. I simply can't prove that a ZEF is the equivalent of a newborn. So as such my libertarian sensibilities tell me that I can try to convince people to believe as I do and act accordingly, but I cannot remove the right of the mother to end her pregnancy. Which BTW is her only right in the matter. She doesn't actually have the right to an abortion per se'. Abortion happens to be the only safe (relatively speaking) method available to her. That's a whole other thread though.



We can go on to say that humans having any real existence outside of my highly vivid imagination is 100% subjective. How existential do you want to get? Adult hood is subjective. Not everyone achieves it at the same time. So 18 to be an adult is a legal fiction. In the end we have to start from one of two premises: society trumps individualism, or individualism trumps society. Any rights there after are dependent upon which premise you choose.
Click to expand...
There is no concrete or empirical evidence to show that the government should protect anyone's rights. It's impossible to prove that a 30 year old is equivalent to a 40 year old.
 
Lursa said:
They cannot be treated equally, so you are avoiding that point.
Click to expand...
I'm not ignoring but the point is invalid as far as I'm concerned.

Lursa said:
And of course the born baby has more 'voice' once born. It immediately makes demands on society...crying, demanding to be fed, demanding attention.
Click to expand...
In the womb it makes demands on society in doctors visits, additional eating habits, etc.


Lursa said:
THe born can individually act on society and be acted on by society. The unborn cannot.
Click to expand...
Why is it any different?
 
Ockham said:
I'm not ignoring but the point is invalid as far as I'm concerned.

In the womb it makes demands on society in doctors visits, additional eating habits, etc.


Why is it any different?
Click to expand...

Those demands are not recognized by society and not acted on society. The woman invites the doctor to do so.

It is a distinguishing characteristic, that's all, however it is one that can be used to indicate how it can infringe on the rights of others and how others can infringe on it.

And why is equal treatment of the born and unborn an invalid issue?
 
Lursa said:
Those demands are not recognized by society and not acted on society. The woman invites the doctor to do so.
Click to expand...
Sure they're recognized in the form of healthcare visits, bills, work and labor, all sorts of things occur and are recognized by society. Who invites who to do the work is irrelevant.

Lursa said:
It is a distinguishing characteristic, that's all, however it is one that can be used to indicate how it can infringe on the rights of others and how others can infringe on it.

And why is equal treatment of the born and unborn an invalid issue?
Click to expand...
Within the womb our outside of it, the rights of the individual apply. Because you do not recognize the unborn as an individual is not my concern. Equal treatment under the law therefore applies. You may not recognize those rights but I do. Therefore it is understandable why I am pro-life and a Libertarian.
 
mpg said:
There is no concrete or empirical evidence to show that the government should protect anyone's rights. It's impossible to prove that a 30 year old is equivalent to a 40 year old.
Click to expand...

Equivalent on what basis? In many cases I can prove a given 40 YO better than a given 30 YO. In other cases the reverse is true. Ultimately with all things considered it is impossible to prove that anyone is the equivalent of anyone else.

Ockham said:
Sure they're recognized in the form of healthcare visits, bills, work and labor, all sorts of things occur and are recognized by society. Who invites who to do the work is irrelevant.

Within the womb our outside of it, the rights of the individual apply. Because you do not recognize the unborn as an individual is not my concern. Equal treatment under the law therefore applies. You may not recognize those rights but I do. Therefore it is understandable why I am pro-life and a Libertarian.
Click to expand...

Even within the constitution there are right that are for the citizen only and not for the non-citizen. This recognition is equivalent to the recognition of whether or not a being is <term>, that term being whatever it is that we recognize the individual, human or otherwise, as above the common animal.
 
Ockham said:
Sure they're recognized in the form of healthcare visits, bills, work and labor, all sorts of things occur and are recognized by society. Who invites who to do the work is irrelevant.

Within the womb our outside of it, the rights of the individual apply. Because you do not recognize the unborn as an individual is not my concern. Equal treatment under the law therefore applies. You may not recognize those rights but I do. Therefore it is understandable why I am pro-life and a Libertarian.
Click to expand...

No, the paperwork applies to the mother and at her will and her will alone. She can choose to not do any of those things, notify anyone.

Your opinion is nice but it is not possible to treat both equally. So to support your position (you are welcome to it anyway, whether you can support it or not)...the state would end up responsible for the death or permanent disability of women that occurs during pregnancy or childbirth if against the will of the woman. The state chooses to risk the woman's life over the unborn (which also may not survive until birth). The risks cannot be predicted, otherwise thousands of women in the US would not die or narrowly miss death every year due to pregnancy, cb.

It also forces the state to decide who to save when a woman needs chemo to cure her cancer when that chemo will kill the unborn. That is not equal. There needs to be laws to guide the state....which one to 'pick.'

Again, it is a nice, feel-good belief but not viable in practice in the US. There can be no equal treatment under the law for born/unborn.
 
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...

Both opinions that you listed are probably held. As I stated in my earlier post, libertarians don't support legalizing murder, so they're not 100% libertarian themselves; that would be anarcho-capitalism. If they believe in banning murder, and they also believe a fetus is a person, they could logically support banning abortion under libertarian principles. However, libertarians are not 100% libertarian themselves, if that makes sense, (not wanting to legalize murder or traditional thievery) so they could also recognize that abortion is one of the few exceptions where they want the government to intervene.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
Both opinions that you listed are probably held. As I stated in my earlier post, libertarians don't support legalizing murder, so they're not 100% libertarian themselves; that would be anarcho-capitalism. If they believe in banning murder, and they also believe a fetus is a person, they could logically support banning abortion under libertarian principles. However, libertarians are not 100% libertarian themselves, if that makes sense, (not wanting to legalize murder or traditional thievery) so they could also recognize that abortion is one of the few exceptions where they want the government to intervene.
Click to expand...

nobody, not one person, is 100% any ideology.

you're a self professed progressive... are you 100% authoritarian?
 
Thrilla said:
nobody, not one person, is 100% any ideology.
Click to expand...

This is true, although some people who are extremely partisan attempt to do so.

Thrilla said:
you're a self professed progressive... are you 100% authoritarian?
Click to expand...

Progressive isn't the best word to describe myself. It was just the closest available option. I am an advocate of social democracy, hence my username. But what exactly makes you think I'm an authoritarian? Over 90% of the time, I consider myself anti-authoritarian, unless you consider my economic beliefs of steeply progressive tax rates and an expansive welfare state to be authoritarian.
 
Lursa said:
As for the unborn....they clearly have no rights....
Click to expand...

You should not ignorantly and arrogantly act as if your OPINION is in any way "clear" fact.

There is nothing inherent to Libertarian principle that would determine whether or not a Libertarian would feel that an unborn chlid is vested with rights or not.

And if he is, there is PLENTY of evidence that a Libertarian can feel it's reasonable to infringe upon someone's rights in the protecting of rights for those who are unable to protect them themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom