scj@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG (Scotian) (01/17/90)
Samuel Antonio Minter writes: | The previous article stated that a person supporting anti-abortion laws |could not be a liberatarian for the very reason that they supported the |creation of laws. There is a flaw in this argument. My understanding is |that liberatarians oppose laws which impose on ones right to choose matters |dealing only with oneself. Laws were proper which prevent one person from |infringing on the rights of another. So for instance laws against theft, rape, |and murder are ligitamate since they protect against infringement of your |rights by someone else. When this liberaterian view is imposed on abortion |there is still ambiguity. |[...] | There is no "correct liberatarian position" since the issue cannot be |resolved using only libertarian principles. The entire issue resolves around |the "personhood" of the fetus. And that is a question which in by no means |one to which there is a universally agreed upon answer. Unfortuanatelly |until there is agreement on the issue of the "personhood" of the unborn |libertarianism can provide no consistant answer to the abortion issue. It |all depends on the individuals personal OPINION on the "personhood" issue. Since it is logically impossible to define an absolutely correct method of defining, let alone determining, 'personhood' (thus nullifying most of the traffic in this newsgroup), making laws which prohibit abortions is completely unjustified, and you do not even need to be Libertarian to realize this. Making laws which are not justified or supported by cold hard facts is a travesty; they are illegitimate laws. Since Libertarians by definition are against laws which infringe on a person's ability to do that which does not affect other people (at least to any great extent, ie. driving pollutes, but is allowed), and it cannot in any way be proven that a fetus has attained 'personhood', to restrict a woman's access to abortions is to act in an unlibertarian manner. -- ............................................................................... Scott C. Jensen I'm the NRA scj@meccsd.mecc.mn.org Say NO to the War on Drugs Pro Choice (abortion, guns, drugs, sex, etc.)
rwilliam@grebyn.com (Roger Williams) (01/17/90)
In article <1623@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG> scj@meccsd.mecc.mn.org (Scotian) writes: >Making laws which are not >justified or supported by cold hard facts is a travesty; they are >illegitimate laws. Since Libertarians by definition are against laws >which infringe on a person's ability to do that which does not affect >other people (at least to any great extent, ie. driving pollutes, but >is allowed), and it cannot in any way be proven that a fetus has >attained 'personhood', to restrict a woman's access to abortions is to >act in an unlibertarian manner. >-- OK, consider the following scenario -- which judging from recent events in Mexico isn't as far fetched as one would hope. A couple conceivves and brings to term a child. After it is born, the couple decides to offer it up as a human sacrifice. Faced with protests, they respond that they do not consider it to be a "person" since it is not self-aware, cannot feed itself and can't do differential equations. "It's just a child", they say. "Not a person, and if you don't believe in human sacrifice, I respect your right not to practice it, but don't you go infringing on MY right to practice my religion and MY freedom of choice". At this point, society is faced with two choices. It can either do nothing or it can impose its view that children _are_ persons under the protection of the law. As we all know, society has opted for the latter choice. Individuals in this country do _not_ have the freedom to unilaterally choose who is and who is not a person. Moreover, the definition of a person has been expanded several times to include children, blacks, and women, so another expansion of the social definition of "person" would hardly be unprecedented. Of course, you _could_ argue that including women, children and racial minorities in the "person" category is a bad idea infringing on libertarian ideals, and, indeed, you could argue that _any_ social definition of what constitutes a "person" is impermissible. Such a position would, I suspect, not be held by very many people, however. Roger Williams rwilliam@grebyn.com
utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN) (01/18/90)
In article <3168@ge-dab.GE.COM> byrnes@sunwhere1.UUCP (Arthur Byrnes) writes: >This is damaging to the Libertarian movement, since the march is in >support of those who want LAWS MADE, not in support of the girl who >doesn't want to have an abortion. I think the point is this -- the individual in question believes that a fetus has rights. I don't agree, but I'm not exactly the same in my view of rights -- I don't see why a vegetable should have rights, or even a severely retarded person. Of course this gets into a new round of argument, but I don't see why you feel the need to utterly bust on this individual for "making a law", since they don't regard this issue as the same as someone doing something stupid and harmful to themself. In the end, I think the person should explain why she considers fetus' to have rights, maybe she can untangle herself -- but I think alot of people here have somewhat tangled notions of human rights and more particularily have inherited Rand's mystic view of these(!) Ron p.s. It should be interesting to hear why a fetus is to beaccorded human rights without "God made its soul" as the reason.