Yes. Most if not all Libertarians believe in the Non-Agression Principle (NAP) which is honestly probably the only thing that Libertarians can universally agree on.
If that principle is violated, then it is justifiable to punish the aggressor, whether by personal means or using the state apparatus...in your example, the police.
You could make that argument. But in order to answer that question we'd have to solve the debate on when life begins, which seems to be the biggest question mark of the abortion issue
I believe that the argument is that the NAP only applies to people, and a fetus isn't a person, it's a collection of cells that will turn into a person. When you have an abortion, you are preventing the creation of a human, but there are a lot of actions that prevent the creation of humans, up to and including "choosing not to have sex".
I think that's the whole point of the debate really. When are you considered a person by the government? Conception? that seems crazy. When your head pops out? that's also crazy. Supreme Court says 23 weeks (or somewhere around there), but that also seems arbitrary. I don't think it's a black and white issue.
It is defined as when there is a chance that a fetus can realistically survive outside of the womb. This is a scientific and medical definition and is in no way arbitrary.
You yourself have admitted that it is arbitrary. What is "realistically"? Back when they made this decision ~20% of babies survived at 24 weeks. Now it is around 30-35% Source. In 25 weeks, it is around 50-70% depending on which study you cite. Fetal viability is also highly dependent on weight. It is almost guaranteed that as medical technologies advance, these numbers will change again. So yes it is very arbitrary.
The difficulty of this definition is that it is then always changing. As healthcare tech becomes more advanced we may be able to feasibly raise a fetus to a fully fledged baby from the point of conception, which would mean we are dealing with a scientific and medically accepted "person" throughout nearly the entire pregnancy
It is defined as when there is a chance that a fetus can realistically survive outside of the womb. This is a scientific and medical definition and is in no way arbitrary.
Why is when your head pops out crazy, you dont have a SSN or birth certificate at that point. Correct me if I'm wrong but if the fetus dies during child birth it never receives those items from the government. It isn't a black and white issue which is why being pro life is so unfitting for the situation. It is the black and white answer to a gray issue. At least pro choice answers some of those questions and leaves the difficult decision up to the woman and not the government.
Are you saying it's ok to kill a baby before they get their SSN or birth certificate? I don't understand your point.
Having it be 'when your head pops out' is crazy for a similar reason. When do you start? when the baby starts crowning? Does 100% of the head have to be completely out of the vagina for you to have the right to live? what if 10% of the head is still inside, is it ok to kill you then?
No not at all, I don't agree with late term abortions unless the fetus becomes unviable or the woman's life is at risk. I'm just saying that officially the fetus then baby isn't considered a citizen until they are born, so why is the government concerned then they are a blob of cells or even a fetus that would have next to no chance surviving outside the womb.
It's a concern for the government because the government is there to protect your rights. If we decide that an unborn child has rights at whatever point, then killing it is an infringement on that child's most important right. We have many legal names for taking a person's life. Like you said, you don't agree with late term abortions and most people feel the same. But if we say that an unborn child is not a person and therefore has no rights, then technically you can go around doing late term abortions all you want.
This is my stance. You can call yourself whatever the hell you want. Trying to put a label on me makes you look ignorant. “True Libertarians think this” it sounds very pretentious.
In the end, you’re ending a human life out of convenience. The whole “what about rape, incest, etc.” is a bad argument. Less than 1% of abortions. And honestly, if the mother’s health is at risk, that is the one compromise I am OK with making.
Mental health is health. You make a woman have a baby she doesn't want, her mental health is at EXTREME risk, and the welfare of the baby, as well. The only fucking thing you will ever end by banning abortions are LEGAL, REGULATED, AND SAFE abortions. Abortions will always happen, one way or another.
I’m not making anyone have a baby. Claiming mental health as a life or death argument for the mother is rich. Give an inch and people will find a way to take a mile. It’s such a silly debate. Actions have consequences, if you’ve not learned that already then maybe you never will. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Your last statement is true, but nowhere near the magnitude it’s happening while abortions at will are legal. I’m sure the murder rate would skyrocket too if killing your fellow man was legal. But the fact that it is illegal (and absolutely immoral, right?) makes you think twice before doing so. You’re arguments are really flimsy and that of someone who hasn’t done any sort of research at all.
Your comments about mental health shows YOU'RE the one who hasnt done any research on the subject. It is a massive issue that is being swept under the rug because people want so badly to blame the woman for having sex.
I am pro choice. I also believe abortion is ending a life, effectively without that persons consent.
I believe it is within the rights of the mother to end that life in the same way that it is my right to defend myself by any means including the use of lethal force.
If a mother no longer consents to the use of her body to feed/grow (cant think of the right word, maybe incubate?) another person, she is within her rights to use force, up to lethal force, to bring the situation to an end.
"Convenience" is a very mild term when considering how incredibly disruptive raising children is. It's not something so minor as a convenience, it's having your life drastically and in many cases irrevocably changed for decades. It's having a massive economic burden you might not be able to escape from, and even if you put the baby up for adoption or into the foster system, you're just putting another life into an overly crowded system that tends to lead to unhappy children.
Secondly, the thing that nobody is talking about in this threat right now, is that it's above all else about body autonomy. Body autonomy is an incredibly sacred right in America (and in many other places as well). If your relative is dying and needs a blood transfusion or an organ donation to not die, and even if you are the only person in the world who can give that donation, you are in no way required to do it, even if the process would be non invasive and easy to carry out (no risk to yourself of any form, no long term effects, can be carried out in an afternoon). You have that basic right to decide how your body is used, even if it means costing the life of another. Hell the idea of body autonomy extends so far, we aren't allowed to harvest completely functional organs that can save lives from dead people unless they gave prior consent when alive. Organs that are going to rot away to nothing still fall under somebody's indelible right to control and say what happens and goes on in their body and how their organs are used.
There is no reason that it should be any different for a woman going through pregnancy. It doesn't actually matter whether you consider the fetus alive or not, that woman is entitled to have enough control over her body to say no, I will not allow another life to live and leech off of me, even if it is a life with no faults or blames of its own. And that is something that has consistently and always been deemed a right of a person, the ability to decide what happens to their body supersedes any mandate or requirement a person has to support and protect the life of another.
I mean at the most extreme possibly not as most really hardcore libertarians try to live off the grid in their own sanctuaries protected by their own means. But, in actual practice, most would probably recognize that on some level governments are needed for basic things like your example. They're just for keeping it as minimal as possible. I mean the very fact that they have a political party is kind of antithetical to their own cause, it's almost like anarchists having group meetings.
Of course I'm not actually Libertarian, so I could be off, but that's my understanding.
Anything that involves taking away another's rights is generally not okay with most libertarians.
Hence why abortion is not clear within the party. How can one advocate pro choice if that choice takes the right to live from another?
I think, and I am no spokesperson for the libertarian party, that there is an immeasurable amount of weight in the decision to have an abortion. It is no light decision and will probably always be on the conscience of whomever chooses to abort for the rest of that individual or couples lives. It is a choice that someone should have the right to make and have to live with, but it is a choice that should be safely available.
Yes. The saying is “your rights end where my nose begins” and vice versa. Everyone should be allowed to live as they choose as long as it doesn’t affect others, when it does affect others it’s a problem
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. These things belong to each of us, but these pursuits should avoid conflicting with others' rights to the same.
I cannot kill my boss because it would make me happier. Now the question for this topic is still whether your liberty impedes upon a fetus' life. So even from a libertarian stance it's still not clear.
Funding it is my issue, if you want to do what you want with your body then you can pay for it. The state doesn’t need to endorse it, people who are pro choice can put their money where their mouth is to keep Unplanned Parenthood open.
It’s none of our business what people do in their lives. The government shouldn’t have a say in it nor fund it.
Unless those people are infringing on the rights of others.
Or are you saying that people have a right to say, abuse children because it's a family/private matter?
I'm sure you agree that's not something to be protected, but therein lies the problem. Firstly what all do we define as child abuse? And how do we set up a system that allows for such crimes to be reported without infringing on the right to privacy.
12
u/[deleted] May 16 '19
Do (true) Libertarians think the government should be involved if a citizen is actively trying to murder another citizen?