Abortion

Miscellaneous General
1

I know I’m opening a can of worms here, but I’m curious to see some thoughts on this, as I havent been able to find much on the subject from a libertarian perspective.

I personally think that abortion is morally wrong, and should not be allowed/accepted. Although there are situations where it might be justifiable/acceptable(such as to save the mother’s life), but these are exceptions, and dont apply to over 90% of abortions performed today.

An obvious response(from a libertarian perspective anyway) is why should abortion be prohibited? After all, in a free society I could choose not to get an abortion(not to difficult given that I lack a womb, but thats beside the point), and I could choose not associate with people who perform and/or recieve them. This is a perfectly reasonable position for drugs, or other such things were the only ‘victims’ are people who willingly choose to participate. But in the case of abortion I think its different, because of the possibility that the act is the termination of a life.

I think it would uncontrovercial to say that the non-aggression principal applies even to people who are mostly(if not wholly) dependant on others for their very survival. For example: it would would be wrong to harm a three year old baby. Or to kill a man in a coma without his permission(though a living-will or some other such document) or at the very least talking to his friends and family about what he would want. So the question is: is a baby still in its mother’s womb as ‘alive’ as either of these examples? Imo the entire debate about abortion comes down to this question, any arguments about women’s rights are red herrings. I agree 100%(as I think would most self-proclaimed 'pro-life’ers) that if the answer is ‘no’ then abortion is perfectly acceptable, moral and should not be prohibited. And I think most self-proclaimed ‘pro-choice’=ers would agree that if the answer is ‘yes’ then it is wrong and should not be allowed.

Unfortunitly for both sides the answer to that question is…unknown. No matter how you look at it, there really hasnt been any clearly definitive answer to when a person achieves something we can call ‘human life.’ Part if is almost certainly the incoherence of the question itself (how do you determine when something is ‘alive’), But regardless, I think given that, and the implications of the act of abortion, I think its best to ‘err on the side of caution’ on this issue.

Also, one more thing: Although I’m against abortion, I’m not too fond of the idea of government enforced prohabition, while it sounds good in principal(as does a lot of state actions), I’m well aware that state actions always comes with hidden costs, not just financial costs, but also costs to our liberty and freedom. But I wonder: How would a truly free society handle an issue like this? Or could it?(I still think liberty is preferable to tyrany, but I’m curious how this might delt with in principal).

I dont know how much of what I said was clear, but I hope I can at least provoke some discussion.

*Abortion Threads*
2

I personally agree that abortion is murder. I think the issue should be decentralized and then see which side actually turned out to be right. The family, or friends, or churches, rather than a centralized state, should also play a role in stopping abortions and care for the newborn.

3

I cannot consider abortion objectively wrong in a moral sense as I don’t believe in objective morality, but personally I start to object to abortion after about 7 months. This being said in the free society I believe that abortions would probably be available no matter what the age of the fetus it would be extremely difficult to track/control and the will to enforce it would (I think) be comparatively small when compared to most other laws that would be enforced in the free society. I consider the major argument for abortion being permitted that fetus’ are utterly unintelligent, especially in the earlier stages of development.

4

This forum is filled with abortion threads.

No State should control a woman’s sexual organs, and nor should it not allow a woman to rid herself of someone that is living off of her. She is her own property, and if she wants to rid herself of someone that she doesn’t want living off her like a parasite then she should have that choice. Who are you to say that she has to take care of that child, or even have it in that case?

5

Let me see if I can clarify.

Is it acceptable to no longer take care of a man in a coma? He can’t take care of himself, he is dependent on somebody else for survival, and he is obviously a human life.

Am I on the hook for murder or any other crime if a person in a coma under my care runs out of funds, I discontinue care of him, and unplug the life support that I own? Have I aggressed against him? Would that not be a positive obligation on someone else?

Now, how is that any different then detaching a placenta from the mother and removing the fetus from the mother’s womb?

6

I’ve always considered abortion a positive right, because it requires a life to be sacrificed for someone else.

7

Yes, never mind the argument that it isn’t a sacrifice, and is actually a discontinuation of sacrifice by the mother for the offspring. We’re just going to continue to say it’s a sacrifice of the baby, and not actually address the argument.

8

A better analogy would be to take a gun and blow the coma patient’s brains out. Or stabbing a kid to death that’s wandered onto your lawn. Abortion isn’t simply eviction.

9

Abortion bothers me personally, but I still think women have that right to make decisions. If I knew somebody who was going to get an abortion, I would attempt to change her mind, but I would not use force to stop her.

If you’re going to use morality in an argument, it’s not the morality/immorality of an act, it is the morality/immorality of using force against an immoral act. Where do you draw that line? Lying and murder are immoral, but not equally so.

10

People who are mentally retarded are utterly unintelligent too. Is it moral to kill them too?

No one said she has to take care over it. People are always looking for children to adopt. Unless she was raped, no one made her have sex, which she knew could possibly cause her to be pregnant, no matter what precautions she took.

11

A better analogy would be to take a gun and blow the coma patient’s brains out. Or stabbing a kid to death that’s wandered onto your lawn. Abortion isn’t simply eviction.

Maybe Partial birth abortions are, but if they simply disconnect the placenta and then remove the fetus, then eviction is exactly what it is.

12

Maybe Partial birth abortions are, but if they simply disconnect the placenta and then remove the fetus, then eviction is exactly what it is.

If that is all that is done, then I agree. But many abortions by and large includes the dismemberment of the trespasser. So by using the eviction argument would those abortions be criminal? The equivalent of murder?

13

“A better analogy would be to take a gun and blow the coma patient’s brains out. Or stabbing a kid to death that’s wandered onto your lawn. Abortion isn’t simply eviction.” - Mtn Dew

No, it isn’t. But those options are perfectly acceptable if that is what is necessary to achieve an eviction.

Is your body your property? Do you or do you not have the right to allow and/or deny access to your property as you see fit? Do you or do you not have the right to change your mind and if you allow access, in the future disallow it, regardless of the effects on the person being evicted by whatever means? As a matter of principle and logic my right to allow and disallow access to my property isn’t contingent upon a previous allowance nor is it contingent upon the affects eviction will have on the evicted party, nor is it contingent upon the means necessary to achieve eviction. Now, that doesn’t mean someone could judge me to be a scumbag for the way I handle myself, but a criminal? Not in any way I can see.

14

Is your body your property? Do you or do you not have the right to allow and/or deny access to your property as you see fit? Do you or do you not have the right to change your mind and if you allow access, in the future disallow it, regardless of the effects on the person being evicted by whatever means? As a matter of principle and logic my right to allow and disallow access to my property isn’t contingent upon a previous allowance nor is it contingent upon the affects eviction will have on the evicted party, nor is it contingent upon the means necessary to achieve eviction. Now, that doesn’t mean someone could judge me to be a scumbag for the way I handle myself, but a criminal? Not in any way I can see.

I pretty sure throwing someone from your speeding car and killing them as a result of their eviction, simply because you beleive you have the right to evict someone from your property come hell or high water would be seen as criminal. Especially if there were other options available and even more so if you had initially agreed to give them a ride to the grocery store then changed your mind on I-95. Or maybe someone dosent leave your property fast enough. Does that now give you unlimited freedom to evict them with extreme prejudice?

I am willing to bet consideration for the circumstances and consequences of the eviction will be considered when determining if how you evicted the trespasser is legitamite or not not. Your right to evict is absolute, but that doesnt mean you can evict them in a body bag just because you dont have to take into consideration the effects of your actions.

15

Excellent point. Plus, all of this ‘eviction’ talk is really taking away from the sanctity of human life. I would hardly classify killing an unborn child in the same category as kicking someone out of your house.

16

FACT: Fetuses have hearbeats when they are 18 days old.

So yes, I’d say this is a living thing and it has it’s own rights. BUT, I do think that in extreme situations (rape, possible death, under-18 pregnancies, the mother’s life takes precedence and she should be able to abort. It is a pretty sick process, though, as Ron Paul said in The Revolution when he talked about why he was pro-life. Given that there is a government, I think there should be some laws restricting abortions.

17

Excellent point. Plus, all of this ‘eviction’ talk is really taking away from the sanctity of human life. I would hardly classify killing an unborn child in the same category as kicking someone out of your house.

Truth be told, I im a bit partial to the eviction arguement. But if you take the eviction stance the vast majority of abortions that take place today would be criminal. Abortion as it stands today is not eviction.

18

I can give you the best of how I came to terms with it. Abortion seems to have multiple meanings. But basically, abortion is the extraction of the fetus from the mother’s body. Which puts the fetus in the same boat as the poor kid in africa that will starve to death if you don’t donate to the childrens fund.

Basically, it is dying of natural causes. The mother chose not to act to save the child.

Fee market will minimize abortions. Adoption incentives, paying mother to carry child, etc.

Just because something is legal does not make it right.

19

With that speeding car point… If someone invaded my car, I will kick them out no matter what speed of my car. The key is, if they refuse to get out themselves. Like a robber who breaks into home and refuses to leave.

That is what the fetus does, it feeds on the mother. Ever hear the term “eating for two?” Plus, the mother’s actions are restricted. hormonal issues, sickness. The birth of the child. The mother should be forced by gunpoint to go through all of this?

20

That is what the fetus does, it feeds on the mother. Ever hear the term “eating for two?” Plus, the mother’s actions are restricted. hormonal issues, sickness. The birth of the child. The mother should be forced by gunpoint to go through all of this?

Leaving aside the fact that nobody is suggesting to force women at gunpoint to keep their child…Unless the woman was raped(which currently accounts for less than 5% of abortions performed today), she made the choice to have sex knowing that it could possibly result in pregnency. Are you suggesting she shouldnt take responsibility for her choices?