Talk:Libertarian perspectives on abortion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. To participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated start-Class on the assessment scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Final paragraph re: dividing libertarians
I reworded the final paragraph which used to state:
- While the abortion issue fiercely divides the American mainstream, pro-life and pro-choice libertarians are not so vehemently separated. Like anarchists and minarchists, they have much more in common than they have dividing them.
This is POV, so the paragraph was reworded more neutrally. Some libertarians do view the issue as an absolute, fundamental dividing line between "true" libertarians and others, regardless of side (pro- or anti-abortion rights). - Korpios 18:34, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Implicit-"all" libertarians against gov't funding?
I changed:
Libertarians are agreed on the latter question, at least, believing that government should not fund personal activity (especially activity of such a controversial nature) . . .
to now begin with "The vast majority of".
My reasoning? IMHO, it is possible (although wildly unpopular, granted) to argue that government funding of abortion can fall under minarchist libertarian principles. Some libertarians would argue for government maintenance of a federal highway system, or environmental regulations, on the grounds that these are "special cases" (freedom to move from Point A to Point B for the former, and Tragedy of the Commons effects of pollutions for the latter); I would argue that funding birth control and abortion can very much be viewed through a libertarian lens of avoiding excessive population. Furthermore, I do not assume a positive "right" to have a child, especially since children (unlike, say, a pet) are destined to become full citizens and therefore potentially strain minarchist systems such as law enforcement.
I feel "vast majority" was the correct NPOV way to put this in the article, since I'm under no illusion that most libertarians would agree with me here.
- Korpios 18:53, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm, thoughtful edit. I think I agree. I think we'd be hard-pressed to find a particular libertarian who feels this way (unless you are submitting yourself as an example?), but it is theoretically possible. Thanks for the change, and the detailed explanation. Jdavidb 14:52, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I am an example of one. As I said, I'm well aware that this isn't a popular stance among libertarians. ;) - Korpios 15:46, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave.
Is this part of the quote or the actual article? If it is part of the article, it is POV....
[edit] Balance the "Pro Abortion" POV
- Families and Children National Libertarian Party platform
- Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship.
For the record, I am "pro abortion" but the argument that a fetus is in its mother's womb because of some "permission" seems like the wrong approach. Children do not live in their parents' house, or live off the fruits of their parents' labor because of permission that must be explicitly granted. Children exist because of a choice made by the parents exercising their right to procreate. Libertarians recognize that with the right to have children comes the responsibility to care for them, as stated in the quoted part of the official National Libertarian Party platform. Children do not need to seek permission from their parents to get from them those things which a child needs to continue to live. Fulfilling obligations freely chosen (such as caring for a child) can in no way be said to "enslave" someone.
The argument that "a fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission" evokes images of a landlord and an eviction. If that fetus is a child, then the parent has the obligation to care for the child until another willing guardian is found. The argument for or against abortion must hinge on that single question: at what point between conception and adulthood does a collection of cells become a human being with its own inalienable right to life?
The answer to the question of when human life begins is a philosophical or religious question, not a political one. Intelligent, well-meaning people will disagree about abortion for as long as that question is in dispute, even if their politics are identical.
I will consider how to write this up for the article page - and if something along these lines should be there.
- There are a lot of good points here. You're welcome to add arguments from the other side, especially with quotations. You should leave the "Abortion Is Pro Life" quote even though you disagree with it (we should show arguments from both sides), but you could probably shorten it without losing much. I'll be happy to work with you on making this more neutral. Dave (talk) June 28, 2005 12:53 (UTC)
-
- I made some improvements. there's more to do, though. Dave (talk) June 29, 2005 03:25 (UTC)
[edit] U.S. Libertarian Party position
This section states:
- It holds that abortion should be legal but neither state-funded or required because "the government should be kept out of the question".
Nowhere it the cited link to the platform is it stated that the USLP holds that abortion should be legal; the lack of a definite statement saying "abortion should be legal" is actually quite conspicuous in its absence.
The statement is presumably an inference from the claim that "the government should be kept out of the question," but the position is (perhaps intentionally?) vague on whether that means anything more than the state not funding or mandating abortions.
In addition, I'm no authority, but I believe that:
- In this, its position is quite similar to that of another institution claiming the support of natural law: the Catholic Church, which allows abortions for medical reasons and sanctions misdeeds only through excommunication
is likely a misleading description of Church policy. --Jfpbookworm 18:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
You're correct about the Church's view on this matter. See 2270 of the Catechism [2]. Roy Harmon 07:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Page is Wrong About Catholic Church's teachings
Say what you will about the Catholic Church as an "institution," but She does not support abortion for "medical reasons." The Catholic Church is against abortion. In case you didn't notice the period, I repeat, PERIOD.
While She does recognize that a mother who finds herself in an unplanned or medically difficult pregnancy has varying levels of diminished capacity to be morally culpable for the abortion (boyfriend/husband/family pressure, doctors' unwillingness to follow the Hipocratic oath), the fact remains that the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is a grave sin, even if done for "medical reasons." By the way, my personal response to those who use the excuse of medical necessity to exonerate abortion comes down to two words: second opinion. Mattsteady 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
