I got in an interesting debate the other night with some of my siblings, which is of course the norm! If you are new to this blog, I often mention my family, I am one of seven kids and when we all go back home to visit -it gets a little crazy (just ask my husband)! My side of the family is much more vocal! We all love to drink wine, debate and it makes for a helluva party and a really fun environment….as long as no one has toooooo much wine, which has happened and that’s another story in itself! 😉
So as I have mentioned in previous posts via Facebook, my thoughts and political views have evolved the more and more I educate myself on the role of government and our founding fathers original intention. I have found…we have gotten somewhat OFF track! The role of government was designed to be limited, and if you haven’t looked around lately…the government is all up in our business…and what I have noticed is….they are extremely incompetent and worse…they have NO concept of monetary value-none! They are like a teenage shopaholic, that stole her momma’s credit card, loose in Nordstrom! They spend spend spend….with no consideration on the effect this will have on our future generations. We have never been here before people….we have never been this far in debt, we have never not lead as the world’s strongest economy and we have no idea what this results in years down the road!
All that ranting to say….I am not a huge fan of big government. No government would be insanity….small government/limited government-perfection! I have so much to say on the benefits of limited government but that will be saved for numerous blogs to come!
Anyway…that’s not what the debate was about, it was about whether or not a true Libertarian could be Pro life? I argued yes! Am I saying I am a Libertarian, no…But the more I study history and the original role of government-their doctrine is appealing. Am I pro-life-YES! That’s why I chose to argue that yes, a Libertarian can be pro-life!
Libertarians are all about individual liberty-you stay outta my business, I’ll stay outta yours, which I like…a lot! We can go into specifics on their stances in another post.
According to the Libertarian’s platform, one of their principles clearly states: “they (government) must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others;”
Now we can get all technical, but according to SCIENCE, Life begins at conception, therefore that life conceived (whether convenient or inconvenient to the one carrying that life) has those same rights as you or I! Furthermore, Libertarians “support the prohibition of initiation of physical force against others.” Ahhh geeez let’s see, if it is a life in the womb (and it is) any physical force (ummm abortion) against that LIFE is against their (libertarians) creed!
Ahhh but you’d argue, what about the one carrying the life, don’t they have their own individual rights? Yes, they do. They have the right to NOT have unprotected sex when a baby could easily be made -because that involves another INDIVIDUAL! It’s called responsibility! For example, casually having a loaded unsecured gun lying around your house with toddlers in it, is irresponsible! If something terrible were to happen, you would be at fault-LOCK it up, be safe! Same goes, for casual unprotected sex, be safe, their are consequences! If you aren’t safe, and you conceive a life….that LIFE now is entitled to the same rights as you and I-period, so get over yourself! You don’t want the responsibility, than keep your pants on…geeeez!
I’d also add there are numerous people who would gladly take that life you created! Adoption is an awesome choice!
That in a nutshell is my argument. I would love to hear yours! Let me know…..can a Libertarian be PRO-LIFE??
10 thoughts on “Can a Libertarian be Pro-Life?”
If personhood is deemed to the unborn, then in the case of potentially terminating this life, we have conflicting rights: the right for this embryo to live, versus the right for the host (the mother) not to undergo the rigors of pregnancy.
We deal with conflicting rights all the time: the rights of the individual versus the rights of society.
Not to dismiss the ordeal of pregnancy, but this is most certainly trumped by THE RIGHT TO LIFE in the aforementioned scenario.
The argument that ‘the embryo is part of her body and she can do what she wants with her own body’ is moot once personhood is ascribed to the embryo and the mother is deemed to be a host for the survival of this other person.
The pro-choicers, however, make a pretty good argument, that despite this life-form, at some point being able to survive outside the womb – and is on a predictable trajectory to do so, AND that it often has a name, awarding it ‘personhood’ is a sticky wicket legally.
At any rate, this discussion is not likely to go away any time soon.
Thanks for posting!
One could also argue, that there are many who are handicapped that would not “survive” outside the womb without daily care by others, or constant medical intervention and assistance, should those that fall under this category be terminated too? .
Thanks for reading! 🙂
Even if you ascribe independent life to an embryo, that life can make no claims to the use of another person’s property. Since a woman’s body is her property, an abortion can be viewed as an eviction of the embryo from the woman’s body. And no libertarian worthy of the name would, for example, deny the owner of a house the right to evict a non-paying, non-leaseholding tenant.
Perhaps you and likeminded folks would be more comfortable if, rather than have an abortion, a woman could request that labor be induced?
Yes, I do ascribe independent life to a “life-” SCIENCE does as well. It’d be like giving someone the title and keys to your house then telling them they can’t live there. That life, no matter how small has choice-or should be allotted choice. Ummm my almost 3 year old and 1 year old, don’t pay rent, should I evict them? That argument holds no reason and termination of life, is not a justification for inconvenience. There are specific times when a woman ovulates-if you have sex during ovulation, you will get pregnant. There is responsibility in that. You have a loaded gun, lock it up! You play with fire, you get burned, is it the fires fault you got burned, or the fact that you played with it? Libertarians, take responsibility for their own individual acts….the argument to be pro-life and libertarian is strong.
No, you shouldn’t evict them. But you shouldn’t be barred by law from doing so, either. This is a critical distinction for libertarianism.
But they are entitled to the same rights if they are a life, and science says they are, therefore-they are an individual. Harming another individual, is against all libertarian ideology. I understand your argument. This debate has been going on for years….
Indeed, if they are an independent life (a separate, and much more complex question), they are entitled to the same rights as the rest of us. The rest of us, however, do not have the right to live in someone else’s house rent free, let alone inside their body.
You have to take age into account on this, like I mentioned earlier-parents are responsible for their children’s well being until 18. Now if they don’t want the child, they can let someone else take over the responsibilities. But just because you don’t want responsibility, does not mean you can end another individuals life.
Right, which is why I asked in my initial reply whether or not you would be ok with inducing labor rather than performing an abortion. If the fetus is sufficiently developed, it will survive and can be put up for adoption. If not, well, you still haven’t killed it but rather evicted it from the woman’s body. This would also incentivize the development of technology to keep embryo’s early in their development alive outside the womb. So, would that be acceptable to you? If so, I think we are actually on the same page. FWIW, I am in the “safe, legal and rare” camp on this issue. I see it sort of like cheating on one’s spouse: shouldn’t be illegal, but still a lousy thing to do.
Incidentally, I feel I should point out how refreshing it is to have a civilized conversation on this subject. People on both sides of the debate almost always get very emotional and resort to hyperbole and personal attacks, which accomplish nothing.
LikeLiked by 1 person