Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Abortion Question
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Abortion Question (Read 2341 times)
Awesome
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline


Posts: 377
Location: Champaign, Illinois
Joined: Dec 1st, 2012
The Abortion Question
Feb 9th, 2013 at 11:25pm
Print Post  
We, libertarians, are approximately fifty-fifty split between pro-life and pro-choice. I have an almost rigorous proof for the following: the woman absolutely has no right to abort except in the case of rape. Here is my proof for it.

The main question is whether the fetus is the mother's property or the child's. Even if it is the woman's body, if it isn't her property, she has no right to do with it anything without the owner's consent. Similarly, if it's not her body, she has full rights over the child if she owns him. So "whose property is the fetus" seems like the right question. In the case of NO RAPE, I have a rigorous proof for why the fetus cannot belong to the woman. Assume that it does, and let's proceed by contradiction:

1. The woman owns the child right before birth.

2. The child owns itself immediately after birth.

3. One can derive from (1) and (2) that the child must, during birth, acquire his body as property from his mother.

4. Property can only be acquired either by homesteading or voluntary exchange.

5. A fetus is incapable of homesteading.

6. From (3), (4), and (5), one can derive that the child acquired his body from his mother via voluntary exchange.

7. When an individual gives something voluntarily, he does it while having the right to decline the giving.

8. From (6) and (7), one can derive that the mother has the right to continue owning the child after birth if she wishes. This result is absurd, and thus we have a contradiction.

You may ask "how and when does the baby originally acquire his body?" The answer is during conception, via voluntary exchange. The parents voluntarily give their egg/sperm to the new property owner. This is why there arises a problem in the case of rape. The woman doesn't really give her egg voluntarily. So I am still confused as to what should happen in the case of rape.

Anyways, what do you think?
  

NSA agents, if you can read this, your mother will die tomorrow.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Crystallas
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2060
Location: R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
Joined: May 4th, 2011
Re: The Abortion Question
Reply #1 - Feb 9th, 2013 at 11:54pm
Print Post  
A woman has the same right to her body, as anyone has the right to theirs. If I take a well known risk, I could have permanent consequences.

Anyhow, I'm with the real Rothbardians on this subject. It's not a matter of pro-life or pro-choice, it's far more reaching as far as taking a stance. A libertarian can be pro-life or pro-choice. I'm pro-life. A person that wants government intervention to rule pro-life or pro-choice over the people it governs would be no more effective than any other form of regulated morality, and it is therefore not libertarian. It's a fantasy to believe that forcing people to be pro one or the other would actually get you the desired results. I argue that the two sides of this debate has hurt families, women, unborn and unwanted infants more than facing to the facts of using the market to improve conditions and the list of choices. Having the most options on the table makes the abortion the last-line choice which would be used in the most desperate situations. Instead, it is considered an early choice for a mixed bag of women in good and bad situations.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Awesome
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline


Posts: 377
Location: Champaign, Illinois
Joined: Dec 1st, 2012
Re: The Abortion Question
Reply #2 - Feb 10th, 2013 at 12:33am
Print Post  
I'm not saying that a government should interfere with abortion. What I'm saying is that it is not a right, and it is coercion. Violation of property rights, that is.
  

NSA agents, if you can read this, your mother will die tomorrow.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
stue denum
Junior Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 21
Joined: Jan 28th, 2013
Re: The Abortion Question
Reply #3 - Feb 10th, 2013 at 5:58am
Print Post  
Most everybody I've spoken with is prolife past a certain point. Who wants abortions being made allowable (in a normal pregnancy) to a woman in labor?

I've thought about it, and would draw the line based on neurological development, but haven't researched it enough to know when exactly the cut off point would be. First frontal lobe 'thought' perhaps....
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4255
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: The Abortion Question
Reply #4 - Feb 10th, 2013 at 7:04am
Print Post  
You don't acquire yourself via homesteading/voluntary exchange. A voluntary exchange has to be a mutual agreement -- the fetus never consents to be conceived. Furthermore, how is the fetus supposed to homestead/voluntarily conceive itself if it does not legitimately possess the ability to act?

You have a right to your person because a proposal for <100% ownership of your person is inevitably going to be contradictory. After all, the proposal in itself must only partially be taken into account, since the proposer does not possess the exclusive ownership of the air and bodily functions used to produce the argument. Furthermore, any other proposal would be to say that all human beings are evil, since they do not possess the right to use all of their organs in a coordinating manner to sustain life. Some of the organs cannot be owned by that person, so the only moral solution is for everyone to die.*

A human being is an individual life form: all of its organs are coordinating to sustain itself. The zygote is clearly human (I mean, sometimes two human beings having sex makes a platypus, but that only happens on occasion) and is also a being. It is furthermore its own life form: all of its organs are coordinating to sustain itself. It is not part of the mother's body: if you take any part of her body -- her hair, her fingernail, etc., it will have her DNA. The zygote has its own unique DNA signature, so it cannot possibly be part of the mother's body.

The zygote has as much of a right to his/her person as does an adult. Scientifically, they're both human beings, so the burden of proof is on the proabortionists to show that the very young human being is the exception and does not possess such a right. As you will find, however, there are no logical ways to make that exception: it always falls into some sort of arbitrary line. They think because they propose this arbitrary line that it means it must be the correct moral code. I guess they believe they're God.**

The primary argument proabortionists use is that very young human beings are inferior to older human beings and therefore can be killed by their mothers. Sure, they'll throw out tons of red herrings, but when you apply the red herring to a hypothetical involving a toddler in replacement of the zygote, they freak out and go back to the inferiority of the very young human being. It's essential that you stay focused on this one key component, because that's truly where people are confused. Rape is one of those red herrings. Can a mother kill her toddler if he was conceived of rape? No? Then why her fetus?

In the more academic circles, there are proabortionists who fully admit that the zygote is scientifically a human being, but claim that the woman has bodily autonomy and can expel whatever she wants from her own body. This logic, however, is also flawed, for it is contradictory: if the zygote is his own person, why is the mother's bodily autonomy relevant? Because the fetus is IN her body? Why, that must mean every woman has the right to murder anyone she gets into bed with, or at least mutilate his genitals.

Human beings have a right to their person, and those rights do not extend to violating the right of another person -- to say otherwise would be contradictory. Abortion is the murder of the human being who resides in the womb.

*Slight bit of a tangent, but I'll kill two birds with one stone: you mentioned in the other thread that, using my logic, "survival of mankind" is not a sufficient argument for a correct moral code because it is using faith to assume that the survival of mankind is the goal of morality. However, It doesn't take faith to make this proposition if that is how you define morality. I define the goal of a proper medical procedure as keeping the patient alive and healthy, and I believe it is safe to say that is a near universal definition. I define a proper moral code as the correct answer to resolving conflict. "Resolving" assumes the survival of mankind, and so I use the NAA as the only logical deduction.

**Those religious people, eh? Grin
  

I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RubyHypatia
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1511
Location: Greer, SC
Joined: May 12th, 2011
Re: The Abortion Question
Reply #5 - Feb 10th, 2013 at 8:21am
Print Post  
My opinion is that people aren't property, and the unborn aren't people until they have brains.  Three months should be plenty of time to decide whether or not to have an abortion.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: The Abortion Question
Reply #6 - Feb 10th, 2013 at 9:09am
Print Post  
I have addressed this elsewhere on another forum and it fundamentally comes down to the issue of natural (inalienable) Rights of the Person. As we know there is no historical precedent that the "preborn" are "persons" as that was explored by the US Supreme Court in Roe v Wade and both sides of the "abortion" debate in making legal arguments agreed that this was true. As a "non-person" the "preborn" would not have inalienable Rights under the law although Roe v Wade did address "potential personhood" of a fetus at viability.

We must also accept the fact that "historical precedent" isn't always correct so let's make an assumption that the "preborn" are persons. Under the definition of a natural (inalienable) Right it is something inherent in the person that does not conflict with the natural (inalienable) Rights of another person.

The woman has a Right of Sovereignty (property right) related to her body. The "preborn" would, as a person, also have a Right of Sovereignty related to it's body. This creates an apparent conflict between the natural (inalienable) Rights of each and a natural (inalienable) Right of one person cannot conflict with a natural (inalienable) Right of another person. We would be violating the very definition of a natural (inalienable) Right if that was the case but I believe there is a resolution where both can have the same natural (inalienable) Right but where there is no conflict.

The key is in the Freedom to Exercise that natural (inalienable) Right. It does not deny the existance of the Right but instead imposes a pragmatic limitation upon the ability of the person to exercise that Right.

As an example we have a Right of Thought and Expression but we also have pragmatic limitations on our Freedom to Exercise that Right. We cannot make libelous statements as they "harm" others nor can we yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because it would cause panic endangering others in the theater. In a "perfect world" we wouldn't require these limitations on our Freedom to Exercise a Right as no one would make libelous statements or endanger others by yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater but we live in a far from perfect world so we impose pragmatic limitations on our Freedom to Exercise our natural (inalienable) Rights. That does not deny that the Right exists but instead addresses matters where there is an apparent conflict between the natural (inalienable) Rights of the Person.

The same is true with the Rights of the Person when we address the "preborn" and the "woman" and their individual Right of Soveignty. Where a potential conflict exists it must be addressed by pragmatic limitations on the Freedom to Exercise the Rights of each.

On one extreme we have small minority (about 7%) don't believe that abortion should be allowed ever including cases of rape. At the other extreme we have about the same percentage of those that believe abortion should not be prohibited ever up to the point of birth. These are extremist positions of small minorities that cannot be supported pragmatically. Somewhere in between there is a line that can be drawn based upon pragmatic and logical arguments and that line is used to establish a limitation on the Freedom to Exercise the Right of Sovereignty of the Person.

This is the logical solution to the issue as it would be virtually impossible to detail out a specific definition as to where the Right of Sovereignty of the Woman ends and the Right of Sovereignty of the preborn begins because the Rights of the two cannot conflict with each other by definition. We have long used the limitations on the Freedom to Exercise a natural (inalienable) Right as a means of resolving the potential conflict between the natural (inalienable) Rights of the Person because we don't live in a perfect world. In a perfect world a woman would never become pregnant by accident, would never have their health endangered by the pregnancy, and would never seek an abortion but that is not reality.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: The Abortion Question
Reply #7 - Feb 10th, 2013 at 9:17am
Print Post  
RubyHypatia wrote on Feb 10th, 2013 at 8:21am:
My opinion is that people aren't property, and the unborn aren't people until they have brains. Three months should be plenty of time to decide whether or not to have an abortion.


As I recall over 92% of abortions occur during this time period. Abortions that occur later require a medical justification certified by a medical professional to allow the abortion.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Free Man
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 290
Location: New Hampshire
Joined: Feb 26th, 2012
Re: The Abortion Question
Reply #8 - Feb 10th, 2013 at 6:07pm
Print Post  
I see it this way. Abortions are a horrible thing. The mother should live in regret the rest of her life. But there is no "ace-in-the-hole" argument to if a fetus is a person or a woman's body and enforcing abortion laws would be near impossible and would lead to black-market abortion doctors and attempted at-home abortions using more primitive and dangerous methods.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
keauxbi
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 608
Location: Southwest Michigan
Joined: Oct 30th, 2012
Re: The Abortion Question
Reply #9 - Feb 10th, 2013 at 6:36pm
Print Post  
Bill Clinton's stance while president was Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. 

In a theoretical moral and just society, women would be responsible and have protected sex when they don't want to get pregnant and men wouldn't rape women.  In that society there would be no unwanted pregnancies and no need for abortion. 

In our society abortion should be between a woman and her doctor and let it be on their conscience what is done.  I absolutely refute the notion that there should be any public funding of elective procedures like abortions and I also think that in the case of "medically necessary" late term abortions it doesn't make any sense to end the life of the child that could survive outside the mother's womb.  Sure, it would lead to more orphans but couples that are looking to adopt would welcome the opportunity.
  

Keauxbi
"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization..."--Edward Abbey
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Abortion Question
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy