Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
I'm a religious conservative who has no problem condemning abortion as something that society, with a few narrow exceptions, should prohibit.
I'm confused, however, on the libertarian position(s) on abortion. For example, I believe that Ron Paul opposes it. Mollie, who I think characterizes herself as a libertarian, does so as well. Fred Cole, however, represents another strain of libertarianism that concludes that abortion is a matter of choice.
I don't intend that we debate the whole abortion issue. What I'm interested in is understanding the basis for the two (maybe more?) positions on abortion that seem to fit under the libertarian umbrella. I'm not even asking for libertarians to passionately argue for their view, I'm just trying to understand the basis for the competing views on this issue.
- Comment (124)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
I consider myself a libertarian. I believe I should be able to do what I want as long as it does not hurt another human being. Killing another human falls under the definition of hurting.
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
tabula rasa,
Thanks for the question. There are a multitude of positions among people who call themselves libertarian.
My approach is the same as Foxman's. I believe that humans should be free to act in whatever manner they choose so long as it doesn't hurt another human being's life, liberty or property.
People do not have the right to end the life of another human being. Other libertarians take positions such as that the unborn human life is the property of the mother's and her right to dispose of however and whenever she sees fit. Or that the rights of the mother to be happy are more important than the right of the child to live, and so on and so forth.
Most libertarians support abortion rights but I believe about 30% of libertarians are pro-life. There are Libertarians for Life groups, too.
Jun '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Thanks to Mollie and Foxman. The economic libertarianism of Hayek and the like has always appealed to me, but the social side has always confused me (due, undoubtedly, to the fact that within each strand of the conservative view of life, there is an amazing diversity of views on individual issues).
Nov '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
I can only echo what's been said above except to add:
Ron Paul is specifically pro-life. And one who actually practices what he preaches, he didn't perform abortions in his OB-GYN practice. He has a very specific conversion moment.
Reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch did an episode of Ask a Libertarian about this, it can be viewed here.
There isn't one specific libertarian position on abortion. There aren't singular libertarian positions on a lot of things. Libertarianism isn't monolithic like that. Which makes sense since considering libertarianism's focus on individuality.
But then again liberalism and conservatism aren't monolithic either.
Edited on May 30, 2012 at 6:03pmNov '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
You can boil down to libertarianism the Non-Aggression Principle: It is wrong for someone to initiate the use of force (agress) against another person or their property. (That includes force, threats and fraud.)
If you consider a fetus to be a person, then abortion is wrong and should be unlawful. If you consider a fetus not to be a person, then there would be no reason to prohibit it, and doing so would be wrong.
Depending on your views about fetal personhood, either position is logically consistent with the Non-Aggression Principle.
Edited on May 30, 2012 at 6:09pmJun '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Fred Cole: I can only echo what's been said above except to add:
Ron Paul is specifically pro-life. And one who actually practices what he preaches, he didn't perform abortions in his OB-GYN practice. He has a very specific conversion moment.
Reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch did an episode of Ask a Libertarian about this, it can be viewed here.
There isn't one specific libertarian position on abortion. There aren't singular libertarian positions on a lot of things. Libertarianism isn't monolithic like that. Which makes sense since considering libertarianism's focus on individuality.
But then again liberalism and conservatism aren't monolithic either. · 3 minutes ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
Thanks, Fred.
Nov '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
tabula rasa
Thanks, Fred. · 2 minutes ago
I am always happy to help explain libertarianism.
Aug '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
The primary libertarian argument I've always heard against abortion is simply that governments have no right to define the word "human".
A free people cannot allow their government to define when human life begins, because they would then have no philosophical recourse against a government that wants to define when human life ends, or a government that wants to define one class of people as "human" and another class as "non-human".
If governments can define when human life begins, that means that the people have ceded to the government the power to redefine the word "human" in any way it sees fit.
Apr '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
So Fred how should libertarians define personhood? To me it seems like this definition is very important to have down, much as the definition of property. Then the question arises if there is a split in the desired definition how should the system err.
Dec '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Misthiocracy: The primary libertarian argument I've always heard against abortion is simply that governments have no right to define the word "human".
A free people cannot allow their government to define when human life begins, because they would then have no philosophical recourse against a government that wants to define when human life ends, or a government that wants to define one class of people as "human" and another class as "non-human".
If governments can define when human life begins, that means that the people have ceded to the government the power to redefine the word "human" in any way it sees fit. · 13 minutes ago
I can only see allowing abortion as de facto defining a fetus as a non-human.
Mar '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Fred Cole: You can boil down to libertarianism the Non-Aggression Principle: It is wrong for someone to initiate the use of force (agress) against another person or their property. (That includes force, threats and fraud.)
If you consider a fetus to be a person, then abortion is wrong and should be unlawful. If you consider a fetus not to be a person, then there would be no reason to prohibit it, and doing so would be wrong.
Depending on your views about fetal personhood, either position is logically consistent with the Non-Aggression Principle. · 39 minutes ago
Edited 37 minutes ago
But would this not mean that slavery is consistent with libertarianism, provided the slaveholder doesn't consider the slave to be a person?
Aug '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Basil Fawlty
But would this not mean that slavery is consistent with libertarianism, provided the slaveholder doesn't consider the slave to be a person?
No, because slavery cannot exist withou government enforcement, and the government has no right to rule that any human being is not a "person".
A slaveowner may believe his slaves are not persons, but he has no right to call on the government to enforce that belief. Therefore, slavery (involuntary servitude) cannot exist.
There can be voluntary servitude which appears to share many of the harsh characteristics of slavery, but as long as the servitude is voluntary it cannot be called slavery.
Mar '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Misthiocracy
Basil Fawlty
But would this not mean that slavery is consistent with libertarianism, provided the slaveholder doesn't consider the slave to be a person?
No, because slavery cannot exist withou government enforcement, and the government has no right to rule that any human being is not a "person".
A slaveowner may believe his slaves are not persons, but he has no right to call on the government to enforce that belief. Therefore, slavery (involuntary servitude) cannot exist.
There canbe voluntaryservitude which appearsto share many of the harsh characteristics of slavery, but as long as the servitude is voluntary it cannot be called slavery. · 1 minute ago
But what if the slaveholder doesn't rely on the government, but simply uses chains and a gun to enforce his rights to his property?
Apr '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
I thought slavery was defended partially under the rubric of property rights. The question is can people be property then? Historically the answer has been yes. So the government need not acknowledge that the slave is or isn't a person just that they are or aren't property.
This is why defining what a person is and what property is are crucial. I would argue further still that these definitions should be codified into law, so that the societal standard be known to all and enforceable.
This does not necessarily mean that the societal definitions will be moral or good. Nevertheless an open Democratic system can allow people to perfect their definitions.
Aug '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Basil Fawlty
Misthiocracy
Basil Fawlty
But would this not mean that slavery is consistent with libertarianism, provided the slaveholder doesn't consider the slave to be a person?
No, because slavery cannot exist withou government enforcement, and the government has no right to rule that any human being is not a "person".
A slaveowner may believe his slaves are not persons, but he has no right to call on the government to enforce that belief. Therefore, slavery (involuntary servitude) cannot exist.
There canbe voluntaryservitude which appearsto share many of the harsh characteristics of slavery, but as long as the servitude is voluntary it cannot be called slavery. · 1 minute ago
But what if the slaveholder doesn't rely on the government, but simply uses chains and a gun to enforce his rights to his property?
The slaveholder would have to do it without the government finding out about it. The government is charged with defending all persons against violent coercion. If the government allows the slaveholder to use violence to coerce others into slavery, that means the government is defining that slaves aren't persons, which is not allowed under libertarianism.
Dec '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
No political philisophy can answer the underlying metaphysical question, it can only apply a practical model on how to deal with the situation after the metaphysical question has been answered.
Nov '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Basil Fawlty
But would this not mean that slavery is consistent with libertarianism, provided the slaveholder doesn't consider the slave to be a person? · 34 minutes ago
Not if the slave actually is a person, if it's a robot, well, then that's a different discussion.
The question of abortion really comes down to when you believe life begins, because at that point rights, including the right to life, attach.
But if you think that life, and therefore rights, attach at conception, then you should be logically consistent and support laws like the one that was defeated in Alabama defining personhood (and therefore rights) to begin at conception.
Nov '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Misthiocracy
The slaveholder would have to do it without the government finding out about it. The government is charged with defending all persons against violent coercion. If the government allows the slaveholder to use violence to coerce others into slavery, that means the governmentis defining that slaves aren't persons, which is not allowed under libertarianism. · 7 minutes ago
I'll also add that chattel slavery cannot exist without a legal system that recognizes humans as property and a government that enforces the property rights of slave holders.
Nov '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
And if you really want to push things into the anarchist end of libertarianism, if you had an entirely voluntary society, where people live in systems entirely of their own choosing, then there'd be nothing stopping any of you who believes life begins at conception from forming your own voluntary community where abortion is forbidden, (not to trivialize the subject) the way Amish communities agree to live by certain rules about dress, etc.
Apr '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Fred Cole
The question of abortion really comes down to when you believe life begins, because at that point rights, including the right to life, attach.
I don't think abortion is about when life begins. At least I hope that's not how people view it. At no point in reproduction is anything ever dead. Sperm and eggs are all alive, the form a new living cell. There has never been a case in biology or medicine where something dead is converted to something living.
In fact one of the main tenets of cellular biology is that "All living cells come from other living cells."