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:
Apr '12
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
For the "personhood" argument, a good starting point is Blackmun's majority opinion in Roe v Wade. In it, he examines the idea of personhood in former law (mentioning the "quickened fetus" of 19th Century British law), and points us to the Constitution, which clearly states more than once its main concern is primarily with "natural born persons."
My problem with Blackmun is that he promises to define personhood, admits that he can't; he looks to the Constitution for help, and admits that it doesn't provide any, and then he abruptly drops that pursuit altogether, and pulls out "the right to privacy," which he admits, in so many words, can't be found in the Constitution. In some ways, Blackmun confesses to us that he wasn't up to the task, and leaves it to others in the future to resolve the issues he couldn't.
No one has ever risen to this challenge.
Apr '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
First of all, good question. I think I'd have to come down on the side of suggesting that every time unique human DNA shows up that counts as a human being. Since identical twins only have near identical DNA that gets you two distinct humans.
Apr '11
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Valiuth
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. · 8 hours ago
True, it is not certain. But you're argument seems to say because we're not certain the pregnancy will be viable later we can take action to end it. Fragility of a life doesn't give us license to end it. If anything it deserves greater protection under the law.
Aug '10
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), arebad...
Who said that?
Not all libertarians believe that government endorsement of same-sex marriage is a right.
Edited on May 31, 2012 at 4:35pmJun '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Misthiocracy
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), arebad...
Who said that?
Not all libertarians believe that government endorsement of same-sex marriage is a right. · 4 hours ago
Edited 4 hours ago
Most of us don't.
Jun '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Tommy De Seno
Casey Taylor
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.
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.
I see what you're saying, and KC does indeed make the argument better than I can. Where I'm going with that thought is that the beginning of consciousness, which to many people is the thing that separates us from the critters, begins at an unknown point. We should therefore err on the side of caution given our ignorance.
Oct '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Murray Rothbard in his book For a New Liberty has a short section on abortion. He articulates the "eviction principle", which says, "no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body". Therefore, the woman is entitled to eject the fetus from her body at any time. Eject...not abort. Of course, eject is the same as abort for much of a pregnancy.
So perhaps if a technology developed that would allow a fetus to be transported to a different womb - artificial or otherwise - that Rothbard would have to concede that there was no right to abortion, only a right to remove the fetus and have the gestation occur elsewhere.
Apr '12
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
But that's buying into the false argument (the false bigger argument).
It isn't a question of consciousness. If it were, then it might be acceptable to murder someone as long as, for instance, they're asleep, right? Human beings aren't not human beings for 1/3 of their lives, are they?
New born babies are hardly conscious.
It isn't your consciousness that makes you a human being. While your unique DNA sequence makes you human, it doesn't by itself make you a unique human--for instance, in the case of some identical twins and clones, there are still two unique human beings, even when the DNA sequence is identical.
Claiming that "we should err on the side of caution," admits ignorance when you can't plausibly claim ignorance.
You know the answer, you just don't think you do.
Jun '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
@Neolibertarian:Horsefeathers. Consciousness is more than being vertical. Awareness of ourselves and space in the world is a defining human trait, maybe THE defining human trait. Ignoring this thing that separates us from the other animals is just foolishness. But I'll accept your terms. What separates a human from the other animals? Why is it important in deciding this issue? When does a human become human and when does that life begin to have intrinsic value?
Apr '12
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Western Chauvinist
This is the problem I have with libertarianism. It can't seem to distinguish between economic liberty and moral/ethical license. · May 30 at 12:21pm
The over application of an economic theory is the heart of libertarian thinking.
This was painted in stark colors in The King Prawns May 26 post "Libertarian Feminism, who knew?" wherein Sharon Presley intimates that a key to libertarian principles is a broad grasp of Austrian economics by an, as yet, ignorant populace.
In fact, economic systems are not moral or ethical. The disposition of property and labor may best be served in an Austrian analysis of economy, but this does not speak to the rightness or wrongness of it.
It seems secular or social libertarians must rely on ad hoc principles on which to found a moral system consistent with their own views. We get a glimpse of this in notofberkley's "I have no problem with infanticide" thread where one of the objectivist members (comment #20) supports mere logical consistency of argument if it provides favored results.
There lies the failure to recognize that the universe of logical possibility is far greater than the universe of the physically possible.
Apr '12
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.
This discussion of slavery is inaccurate.
1) There are contemporary examples of slavery around the western world where individuals are traded, sold and held against their will in order to perform sexual acts or other personal services. This servitude is illegal and when discovered, generally rectified.
In fact, here, Misthiocracy appeals to a police state for morality
2) Regardless of the state's role, laws do not define morality and they do not modify thought, theories, or beliefs.
A favored example of this for libs is marijuana. There are those who think it should be decriminalized or who traffic in it. Yet laws exist stating marijuana use is illegal.
Clearly, individuals may hold opinions in contradiction to law and behave accordingly.
Apr '12
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
A dog is certainly aware of his surroundings. He can interact with his environment and learn (though learning for a dog is painstakingly slow). In a vague kind of way, a dog is most likely even aware of himself.
A chimpanzee can definitely be self-aware, and some have offered quite compelling proof. There's the disturbing case of Lucy Temerlin, for instance.
(Mary Shelly's Dr. Frankenstein was a man who thought of himself as a heroic genius and ended up proving himself nothing but a contemptible coward and a fool. Maurice Temerlin was all that cubed.)
When you're asleep, you're still self-aware, but unconscious. When you're in a coma, you're neither self-aware, nor conscious. But you're still a human being, correct? Therefore, it seems that consciousness has little to do with the issue at hand. It can't be thought of as the key, nor the defining human trait.
You already know the answer. Why can't you see it?
Apr '12
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
I agree that ignoring what separates us from other animals is foolishness. Yet the vast majority of people very much do ignore it. This has led to all sorts of travesties, not least of which is Roe v Wade.
Since 1973, the total is something like 39 million murdered babies. The real problem is that all those people involved in the murders have been pretending all along those dead aren't really human beings. They redefined the victim.
Hunh?
To me, the danger isn't so much in the killings, but in the self-delusions which had to be created in order to permit them. Self-delusion and self-deception — nothing can ever be quite as dangerous for any of us.
But even more troublesome is the fact that you've been arguing from the false premises, while it's pretty obvious you know better; that you already know the answer. But you don't think you do.
Maybe redefining words is more effective on our thinking process than I believed.
Apr '12
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Because of the Central Computer, the USS Enterprise is able to explore the stars even before a single member of the crew comes aboard. It can move; it can record what it has done; it can learn; it can adjust to its environment, it can even defend itself. But it was designed and programmed to do all these things. It can't do anything else--it can't do anything it wasn't programmed to do. And it can't NOT do what it was programmed to do.
But, once Captain Kirk (or Picard or Archer or whomever) comes aboard, it is now something more than just a ship. Now that someone is at the helm; now Kirk, Spock, Ohura and Chekov are on the bridge, it can do many things it could never be programmed to do; All because Kirk has freedom to choose.
When you speak the pronoun “I”, you're not referring to your Enterprise, are you? No, when you refer to “I”, as in “I agree,” or “I choose,” or “I love ,” you're referring to the Captain on your bridge.
Dec '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Mendel
...
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.
Oh no it didn't. Roe may be the biggest tangle of violations of reason and ethics ever perpetrated on the American people. As Neolibertarian points out, the decision was not to decide when human life begins (or even what the criteria for deciding might be, e.g. heartbeat, consciousness, etc.) and therefore to allow abortions up to and including the 9th month of gestation.
This may have been excusable prior to DNA sequencing and ultrasound, but only if you believe in erring on the side of the gestator over the gestatee. If you have no regard for "first do no harm."
Now, there's simply no excuse. We have the science to show that the zygote has a complete and unique human genome separate from the gestator. It's human and alive.
Dec '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Casey Taylor
Misthiocracy
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), arebad...
Who said that?
Not all libertarians believe that government endorsement of same-sex marriage is a right. · 4 hours ago
Edited 4 hours ago
Most of us don't. · May 31 at 11:49am
Glad to hear it. What are the numbers Casey? Has there been a poll? We need to hear more from such libertarians on the SSM threads, that's what I'm thinkin'!
Dec '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Furius Camillus
Western Chauvinist
... It can't seem to distinguish between economic liberty and moral/ethical license.
The over application of an economic theory is the heart of libertarian thinking.
This was painted in stark colors in The King Prawns May 26 post "Libertarian Feminism, who knew?" wherein Sharon Presley intimates that a key to libertarian principles is a broad grasp of Austrian economics by an, as yet, ignorant populace.
In fact, economic systems are not moral or ethical. The disposition of property and labor may best be served in an Austrian analysis of economy, but this does not speak to the rightness or wrongness of it.
It seems secular or social libertarians must rely onad hocprinciples on which to found a moral system consistent with their own views. We get a glimpse of this in notofberkley's "I have no problem with infanticide" thread where one of the objectivist members (comment #20) supports mere logical consistency of argument if it provides favored results.
There lies the failure to recognize that the universe of logical possibility is far greater than the universe of the physically possible.
That's it Furius! I'm following you!
Dec '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Perfect argument for euthanasia. We can kill the brain damaged, the alzheimer's victims (some people say our memories make us who we are), maybe if we stretch a little the genetically malformed (do severe Down's kids have self-awareness?).
Life has intrinsic value because it is human. Not, it has intrinsic value, therefore it is human. You're a science guy Casey. Do you really want to layer arbitrary criteria on top of complete and unique human genome? Do you not see the temptations of the various interests to thereby place one human's interests above another's?
I'm glad to know you're against abortion. I'm just not sure you've reasoned it through.
Mar '12
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
:-) Just to stir things up: Do libertarians support abolishing compulsory child support for men, as they have already abolished compulsory childbearing for women? If a woman wants to abort, but the father believes she is killing his child, she can tell him "None of your business" and abort the child anyway. If he doesn't want the child, but she does, she can turn around and sue him for child support. Should she have it both ways? If she is opposed to abortion for religious reasons she isn't entitled to support her beliefs at his expense anymore than she is entitled to get 10% of his income to tithe to her church. If she wants a child for other reasons she shouldn't expect monetary support from someone who disagrees. When sexual and reproductive decisions were linked women were entitled to support. Now sex and reproduction are legally separate, and reproductive decisions are the exclusive prerogative of women. "Choice" and responsibility go together. The only "anti-choice" argument for child support that works in a society which tolerates abortion is that "Two wrongs don't make a right". But it only works if abortion is one of the "wrongs".
Aug '10
Re: Calling Mollie and Fred Cole: Help Me Understand the Libertarian Position(s) on Abortion
Just to mix things up, if anyone is interested in how a traditionalist (i.e, Burke and Kirk) conservative justifies being anti-pro-life, check out this essay by Robert Nisbet.