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:
Nov '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
I'm neither Mollie nor Fred, but I'm pretty sure the issue boils down, for almost every school of thought, to whether the fetus has rights as a human being. If it's "a fish" then even an evangelical christian like myself would admit abortion as morally neutral. If it's a human baby, then many hardnosed "prochoice" folks would reverse their positions. In fact, from my reading I'll say that a significant population of pro-life folks started on the other side and, for one reason or another, arrived at the conviction that what is in the mother's womb is a human baby, and the issue came to a close.
I think this is the only real issue. It's not about the freedoms, rights or convenience of adults. Resolve the question of human rights for an unborn baby, and the issue resolves itself except maybe for 0.1% of the people.
Mar '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
tabula rasa
I honestly didn't think this would generate this much discussion, but, on reflection, I'm like the French policeman inCasablanca: I'm shocked, shocked that there is so much controversy when the words "libertarian" and "abortion" are used in the same sentence.
When it Rains, it pours.
Nov '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
I'm a convert, and sometimes a reluctant one, to the prolife point of view. (My father, who taught me my conservatism, was a conservative with strong libertarian leanings.)
The idea that brought me around was the idea that if you have to err on one side or the other--killing humans v. protecting nonhumans--you clearly would rather not err on the side of killing humans. Surely that's an argument that would appeal to most libertarians? Libertarians don't want to have government legalize killing people, do they?
Also, the idea that many early pregnancies end in miscarriage seemed like a reasonable argument in favor of abortion, until one day I suddenly realized that it was not an argument at all. After all, there are parts of the world in which large numbers of children die before they are five years old; that wouldn't make it right to go and kill a bunch more off, would it? Ultimately, everyone dies at some point, so why can't we kill people whenever we feel like it?
Nov '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Now I'm older than when I first came to a prolife point of view, and a lot of life has happened to me. Specifically, I've suffered five miscarriages, and each one, no matter how early, was as painful as any family member's death I can imagine. I also now have an adopted daughter, and I know how extraordinarily difficult it is to adopt in a world where children are aborted every day. I would have loved to adopt another child, but it's just too hard. At any rate, it's no longer just an abstract argument; it's now personal. A world with less abortion would be a better place in so many ways.
May '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Misthiocracy #28
That seems like a fair statement.
The libertarian might argue that the "broader community" is nothing but a group of individuals. How can one have a policy that does not injure individuals but does injure the "broader community"?
Any example of a policy that injures the "broader community" but does notinjure individuals would appear to merely be an attempt to substitute "broader community" for "the state" or "the government".
Example -- Marijuana. Libertarian: My pot smoke does not harm you (assuming I don't drive under the influence and injure you.) Conservative: My pot smoke tends to degrade my ability to produce up to my capability which deprives society of the goods/services/ideas I might otherwise have contributed, thereby harming you indirectly.
Note: 'society' is not the state or government; it is my fellow man, a group of individuals, who are each indirectly impoverished by my self-incapacitation. Note, too, that this type of argument can be applied to any number of issues.
Edited on May 31, 2012 at 3:05amMay '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Fred Cole #35
Not pragmatism versus a moral/ethical system. The NAPisa moral principle.
It is individualism versus communitarianism.
Fred, your last sentence is very clarifying.
I'd, personally, be inclined to disagree on NAP being moral; from whence is it derived? Ethical? Yeah, I suppose I could go that far. But, at root, just pragmatism. I must be careful of your rights....why? Because you're bigger and stronger than me? Because I want you to be careful of my rights? So far we're just at the level of pragmatic, in my view.
Dec '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Mendel
Misthiocracy
....
As a compromise, I am personally willing to allowlegislaturesto decide that period, as long as the decision can be altered later when new facts come to light.
I agree whole-heartedly. While I usually find state-wide referenda horrible for governance, this is one case where they might be very useful. · 5 hours ago
Wait, so the referenda defining marriage as between one man and one woman, as it has been defined in all of American history and much of human history (with exceptions for the number of wives), are bad, but referenda deciding the fundamental issue of what is a human deserving of human rights, at some stage past conception presumably, are good? I'm sorry. This is the moral/ethical incoherence characteristic of libertarianism.
Libertarians seem unable to distinguish between coercion and prohibition. Laws protecting traditional marriage in no way coerce gays to marry the opposite sex. Similarly laws protecting human life do not coerce women to become parents (adoption is always an option). These are prohibitions on SSM and killing nascent human beings.
The coercion with SSM will occur when my pastor gets arrested for hate speech for teaching the biblical view on marriage.
Dec '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
You can thank me for throwing the SSM fuel on the fire later, tr. ;-)
Nov '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. · 9 hours ago
Didn't I tell ya?
Oct '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Blanky, well played. Brilliant, in fact.
This post is exactly why I read Ricochet. I learned more about human nature from this comment thread than from a hundred humdrum "oh-those-awful-liberals" posts.
Could have used a little more Fred, tho. Misthiocracy shouldn't have had to carry the ball so much.
Mar '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Western Chauvinist
Wait, so the referenda defining marriage as between one man and one woman, as it has been defined in all of American history and much of human history (with exceptions for the number of wives), are bad, but referenda deciding the fundamental issue of what is a human deserving of human rights, at some stage past conception presumably, are good? I'm sorry. This is the moral/ethical incoherence characteristic of libertarianism.
When it comes to the process of formulating marriage laws, I also find referenda at the state level to be a less-odious method-- I don't see where the hypocrisy or incoherence is here (granted, I have avoided the gay marriage threads for a while now). I do suppose I'm a very poor representative of libertarianism as a doctrine, though.
And what better way would you suggest for deciding when the protected phase of life begins? Your comment seems to suggest you find it self-evident that life begins at conception, but our current system of government managed to come to the exact opposite conclusion. An up-or-down vote among the populous seems a much fairer way of deciding than 5 unelected judges.
Edited on May 31, 2012 at 6:11amApr '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Tom Lindholtz
Fred Cole #35
Not pragmatism versus a moral/ethical system. The NAPisa moral principle.
It is individualism versus communitarianism.
Fred, your last sentence is very clarifying.
I'd, personally, be inclined to disagree on NAP being moral; from whence is it derived? Ethical? Yeah, I suppose I could go that far. But, at root, just pragmatism. I must be careful of your rights....why? Because you're bigger and stronger than me? Because I want you to be careful of my rights? So far we're just at the level of pragmatic, in my view. · 3 hours ago
There are Christians who believe in versions of the NAP as moral principles; Tolstoy is a particularly well known example. I think their theology tends to be poor, but I don't think it's argued in bad faith. Many people are wrong, but genuinely ideologically so.
Apr '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
FreeWifiDuringSermon
False equivalency. Proclaiming someone who's already traversed the birth canal (alive) legally dead when their heart and brain stop later is not the same as ending a healthy pregnancy that is progressing normally. If you leave the latter alone, a viable human steps out. Not the same with an adult whose ticker and thinker stop.
Well you can't be certain that a human will come out if you leave it alone. In fact after fertilization you can't even be certain how many humans will come out. In fact up until the 32 cell stage each cell of the developing human can actually independently generate a viable human should it be come separated. Normally of course this does not happen, but identical twins and eve triplets occur.
Apr '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
So here is a thought question for the group. If the fertilized egg in fact can form any where between 0 and 4 humans. Is it really one person, none, or several? Its potential is theoretically very vast though the odds clearly favor either 0 or 1 persons developing from one fertilized egg.
Jan '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
You can't confuse the indeterminacy of quantity with the indeterminacy of quality. There may be one, or more than one, but that doesn't change the fact that they're all human.
If it forms zero, then there is no moral question in the first place. If it forms one or more, then they're all human.
The key is that a fertilized human egg can't form anything other than a human being.
Edited on May 31, 2012 at 7:12amJun '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Misthiocracy
It is ludicrous (to me) that one is not a person the second before birth, but one is a person one second after birth.
I do recognize that onemightnot become a person until some point after conception. I do not recognize that the state, as represented by the Supreme Court, has the authority todefinitivelydecide how long that period should be.
Which is exactly why this libertarian is 100% anti-abortion. There's no way to definitively know when human life begins, so any statutory decision will necessarily be arbitrary. Where life is concerned, I always have to err on the side of caution.
Edited on May 31, 2012 at 9:57amApr '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
KC Mulville
You can't confuse the indeterminacy of quantity with the indeterminacy of quality. There may be one, or more than one, but that doesn't change the fact that they're all human.
If it forms zero, then there is no moral question in the first place. If it forms one or more, then they're all human.
The key is that a fertilized human egg can't form anything other than a human being.
Are you sure? Because when I listen to some liberals, it sounds like anything between a front-end-loader and a tool shed might emerge from the woman's womb. Certainly it couldn't be a baby.
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Casey Taylor
Misthiocracy
It is ludicrous (to me) that one is not a person the second before birth, but one is a person one second after birth.
I do recognize that onemightnot become a person until some point after conception. I do not recognize that the state, as represented by the Supreme Court, has the authority todefinitivelydecide how long that period should be.
Which is exactly why this libertarian is 100% anti-abortion. There's no way to definitively know when human life begins, so any statutory decision will necessarily be arbitrary. Where life is concerned, I always have to err on the side of caution. · 3 hours ago
Edited 3 hours ago
Casey even though we are on the same side I have to disagree with the statement that there is "no way to determine when human life begins."
Both "human" and "life" are scientific terms operating independently from legislation (legislation and courts are free to ignore science, but can't actually change the science).
There is no scientifc dispute that a zygote is both human and alive.
As KC pointed out, government opines on the word "person" which has no scientific definition and is a purely political question.
Apr '12
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
@Austen Murray. Sorry, on an iPad and it does not add quotes. I agree with your points. Having discussions about when does a seed become a tree, or cells a human, has gone on for decades. Michael J. Fox has his medical research goals and Rick Santorum had his vision. What about that girl alone and pregnant with the ability to abort secretly at tax payer cost? Libertarianism may say let her do what she wants, but at that frightening and lonely time in her life, she may need support. Why is she not shown an ultrasound or counseled about adoption? Should the father have to come and sign his consent? Should the girl, if under 20, have her parents have a pre-abortion counseling session required? Is there a 20year forward plan shown to her on costs of education and care covered? Here in Canada, the government wanted tax funded abortions to require the mother to see an ultrasound but that was scotched. Until a conservative "Julia" projecting twenty years forward with a child is given by a Rick Santorum, abortion will continue as a debate on when is the fetus alive and human.
Apr '12
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
There is an old libertarian understanding of the purpose of law: laws are enacted only for the protection of women, children and fools (laws aren't for free men, since they are rational beings, free and empowered to pursue their own interests).
Women, no longer as vital as they once were to the survival of the race, have since risen to the challenges of their individual empowerment.
Which would leave the modern libertarian understanding of law: laws are for the protection of children and fools. In other words, laws are for those who cannot protect themselves.
Obviously, a zygote can't protect itself.