Libertarian Viewpoint on Abortion
There are a lot of ways to approach the abortion debate. Congressman Dr. Ron Paul has his approach, which I can safely say coincides with a majority of libertarian perspectives, however, lets look at the issue and see what everyone thinks.
I would argue, as Dr. Paul does, the federal government should not be involved with the abortion issue. According to the Constitution, there is no explicit mention of abortion, however, the Supreme Court held that a woman may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the “point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable’”. The Court defined viability as the potential “to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid,” adding that viability “is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.” The Court rested these conclusions on a constitutional right to privacy emanating from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, also known as substantive due process – more on this later.
In any event, apart from waiting forever for Supreme Court justices who rule in accordance with the Constitution, Americans do have some legislative recourse. My personal favorite in combating ridiculous court actions is Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution – it gives Congress the power to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over a broad categories of cases. For example, Dr. Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act. It removes the jurisdiction from the federal courts & allows the states to pass protection to the unborn. Instead of waiting years for a Constitutional Amendment, this would happen immediately, by a 2/3 majority vote in the Congress and the president’s approval.
Another problem with abortion being regulated by the federal government is having pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion. A decent legislative recourse introduced again by Dr. Paul is the Taxpayer’s Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) – it forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas.
Back in 2008 when Dr. Paul was running for presidential office, he got a boost at an event in Washington in which the “Roe” in the Roe v. Wade (1973 court case) endorsed his bid for the presidency. Norma McCorvey famously changed her mind about abortion and now the woman whose court case created current abortion law crusades against the practice is now trying to reverse it. McCorvey noted that she changed her mind when introduced to Paul’s views of government non-involvement.
I kind of agree with the Courts reasonings in Roe. v Wade. Earlier explained:
[The Court defined viability as the potential "to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."]
I would argue that there is no life without considering the viability factor in pregnancy. I like to think of it in terms of the movie Minority Report (a 2002 science fiction film); It is set primarily in Washington, D.C. and Northern Virginia in the year 2054, where “Precrime”, a specialized police department, apprehends criminals based on foreknowledge provided by three psychics called “precogs”. You may be asking yourselves what this has to do with anything, but it brings up an interesting thought: Can someone get charged and arrested for a crime he has yet to commit if it was somehow predicted that the person would eventually commit the crime? How this relates is applied to those who call abortion murder. Lets say, a woman gets an abortion at 3 months – well before crossing the scientifically concluded “viability threshold”. As such, some pro Lifer’s (*Note: Fixed – Jim Weber’s correction) would call the woman a murderer. What these pro choicer’s fail to realize is that they are predicting the so called murder based off the assumption that the baby would have lived anyhow. I’m offering a pretty messy analysis here, however, I think it gets the point across.
So tell me forum, do you agree? How do you feel about the abortion issue?
In Liberty,
Jonathan Raof
i agree with ron paul that this is not legitimately a federal issue but rather a state issue. his concern tends toward life preservation. my issue is neither woman choice nor life preservation. it disregards that issue entirely. my issue is equal rights for men. if a given state (state x) allows 6 months to abort then it follows that parenthood is a 6 month option. that right applied to motherhood but not fatherhood is a violation of the 14th amendment.
Lptbruce,
That’s an interesting point. So your saying that men are treated unfairly in the equivalent situation of a mothering aborting her unborn child? I definitely agree people don’t chant “Men’s Rights Now!!!” enough these days, and we can definitely make it so!!!
Well now, there is a lot going on in this article. I am not sure where to begin or if I even want to get into this. I will give this a while to sink in and get back to you.
Do you promise to get back to me?
You Wrote:
“As such, some pro choicer’s would call the woman a murderer. What these pro choicer’s fail to realize is that they are predicting the so called murder based off the assumption that the baby would have lived anyhow.”
I think you may have intended to use “Pro-Life” here. Pro Abortion or Pro-Choice supporters, like Obama, would allow an abortion after 8 months and 29 days of a pregnancy, and actually Obama, while a member of the Illinois Senate voted twice to “allow a newborn to die” if the intention was an abortion.
For my part, knowing a little about Biology, Biogenetics, and Biophysics, the killing of an abortion “doctor” is justifiable homicide. Not that I would ever advocate that but put me on the jury of someone accused of murdering one of these people and I would have to vote my conscience.
Jonathan,
OK my friend, now let’s see the contradictions here and see what we can come up with.
First one, you mention that Ron Paul says and you agree with – the federal government should NOT be involved with the abortion issues. Yet in the very next paragraph you have them getting involved with the Sanctity of Life Act. So which is it – should they be involved or not.
Next, you introduce a paragraph that talks about tax payer’s money and how it is spent. In other articles you take the stance that money collected by the government can be spent by the government in the ways the government wishes. Well, at least that is what is coming across and being insinuated. So there is inconsistency in the principle applied.
I am not sure why you look at the viability factor this way. It is kind of like saying that you cannot cut down an apple tree. So where do you draw the line on the apple tree? Is it when it produces fruit? Is it when it produces branches? Is it when it breaks through the ground? Is it when you plant the seen in the ground? When is the tree a tree that cannot be cut down?
Your analogy to the film “Minority Report” is way off. That film is nothing more than the “thought police” coming to get you. The act itself never took place therefore there was no crime. You cannot punish someone for something that did not happen.
In an abortion, the act does in fact take place. So, if you left it up to the definitions in the law, and the act took place outside those definitions, then yeah, it was probably murder according to the law.
Personally, I think it is murder any way you look at it. However, I am not the one carrying the baby, and I am not the one that made the choice. I am not the one that will have to live with the guilt the rest of my life either.
JimW,
I am not saying that pro choicer’s are right here. However, I think your idea about sentencing the doctors is slightly off.
Would you rather have the woman use a clothes hangar on her own and end up killing herself at the same time – especially knowing when there is a safe procedure that can save at least one of them? OR would you prefer both the mother and the child to die because they don’t go see a doctor.
Doctor’s are there to save lives. Should they turn the woman away knowing that she will end up killing herself as well as the baby?
Put it in a different perspective. Say the woman getting the abortion was your daughter. Now how do you feel about it?
If you feel differently, remember, every woman is someone’s daughter. If it is good enough for your family why should it be any different for anyone else’s family?
Jimk,
You say:
“Yet in the very next paragraph you have them getting involved with the Sanctity of Life Act. So which is it – should they be involved or not.”
The context representing Ron and I’s perspective was referencing the Supreme Court getting involved by creating positive rights. The legislature can get involved to protect negative rights – through legislation such as the sanctity of life act. So, no government can be involved in providing positive rights for or against abortion.
Next, you say:
“tax payer’s money and how it is spent. In other articles you take the stance that money collected by the government can be spent by the government in the ways the government wishes. Well, at least that is what is coming across and being insinuated. So there is inconsistency in the principle applied.”
Well Jim, yes, tax payer money can be spent in whatever way the government wants, but of course, that can change legislatively. For example, turn to the example in the original article – “Dr. Paul introduced the Taxpayer’s Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) – it forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas.” So no inconsistency there.
Next, you say:
“I am not sure why you look at the viability factor this way. It is kind of like saying that you cannot cut down an apple tree. So where do you draw the line on the apple tree? Is it when it produces fruit? Is it when it produces branches? Is it when it breaks through the ground? Is it when you plant the seen in the ground? When is the tree a tree that cannot be cut down?”
Well, I think this is your most interesting point, however…
You base your point off the analogy of comparing apples to babies. The thing is, I value human life over wild life and trees, so I can’t really buy into that example. If you want to get into an ontological debate with a nice transcendental ending, then lets do that. So, which one do you value more, Jim, fruit or babies? lol
Next, you answer the Minority Report analysis. Sorry to say this, but it was non-responsive (LOL) to the point I wanted to make. Its my fault for not phrasing it better – i’ll try and do so later.
Jim Webber,
Thanks for the correction. Pro Lifer’s was the term I should have used.
You say:
“For my part, knowing a little about Biology, Biogenetics, and Biophysics, the killing of an abortion “doctor” is justifiable homicide. Not that I would ever advocate that but put me on the jury of someone accused of murdering one of these people and I would have to vote my conscience.”
Although killing the doctor is an option discussed in many circles, I fear I have no idea how it relates to Biology, Biogenetics, and Biophysics. Can you please elucidate?
I personally don’t believe one should kill the doctor who performs an abortion, and if I was on a jury, I would vote my logic.
On a side note, do you believe in the use (by whomever – government or the people) of stem-cell research?
Jonathan,
OK, once again, I can see this is going to go nowhere since you don’t see how NOT getting involved and getting involved are two different things. When you know the difference between NOT getting involved (ie doing nothing involving the issue) and getting involved (ie doing something involving the issue) maybe we can talk some more.
Your referral to being non-responsive is a little baffling to me. But OK – what can I expect from someone who doesn’t know the difference between doing and not doing.
Jonathan,
You entered a nice area of debate when you asked about Stem Cell Research. That might be worthy of a whole new article.. I don’t see why they can’t do stem cell research from the placenta if it is all going to be discarded in the garbage anyway. There is all the talk about going “green”, may as well apply it here too. I am sure if they did the research they might come up with some cures for things that have been ailing people over the centuries.
Jimk,
You didn’t answer any of my rebuttals to the contradictions you listed. Are you saying, I win? Just drop the Minority Report example for now and we don’t have to worry about the non-responsive debate for now.
Tell me, where am I not clear on when and when not the federal government should get involved?
Jonathan,
If there is a robbery happening in a store as you walk by. You can either get involved or not.
By not being involved, you simply keep on going about your business and do nothing.
Getting involved can be any number of things – go after the robbers, call the police etc.
If your stance is that the government does NOT get involved – then that means they go about thier business and do NOTHING.
If you stance is that they do get involved, they create legislation etc on one side or the other about the subject – thus – injecting thier involvement.
Get it?
You cannot have both, either they are involved or they are not. Choose and we can move forward from there.
As fo ryour rebutals – I didnt bother with them because you dont even see the difference on the first one – so – there was no point.
You can have both! It just depends on what is being done. Remember positive and and negative rights??? Go read the explanation again!!!
Jonathan, You wrote:
“Although killing the doctor is an option discussed in many circles, I fear I have no idea how it relates to Biology, Biogenetics, and Biophysics. Can you please elucidate?
I personally don’t believe one should kill the doctor who performs an abortion, and if I was on a jury, I would vote my logic.”
1)I don’t know of the many circles you refer to – Please name one of the many.
2)Your logic dictates that you would not get involved in the prevention of a crime. Hmmm. I may be a better neighbor than you in that case. I suppose you would at least dial 911.
3)Killing an abotion doctor is in no way related to the science of when life begins – I can not see how you could make that connection – sorry for the foggy connection.
The Roe decision was based on bad science because at the time it was a celebrity doctor, Dr. Carl Sagan, who said that man progressed through the evolutionary process, or cycle, from conception to birth with the end product being modern man. If you were to pull the fetus (latin word for infant)out of the womb at an early stage it would be a fish, or later a dog, or later a Negro, or later a Mongoloid (Japan, China, American Indians), and finally modern man (European). Hitler thought the same thing so he was in progressive company. But his argument carried the day. My point is that Biogenetics now recognizes that, at conception, the “library” of information is fully contained in the DNA and like stem cells. But from conception, the “thing” can not be anything other than a man. There is far more of course. You have to decide when you will protect life, as a neighbor or as a man of educated conscience.
4)I have no problem with stem cell research, no one should. Unless of course the stem cells were harvested from a murdered infant, I mean fetus. You do know that stem cells come from many parts of the body I assume.
Jim Webber,
Here is a nice video to tie you over to answer your number 1 point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miTk8PU8Oh0
and, a nice article too!!!
http://www.aolnews.com/story/abortion-doctor-killed/505406
These are just some of the circles you might find those people in.
and quickly to your point 3, you said:
“For my part, knowing a little about Biology, Biogenetics, and Biophysics, the killing of an abortion “doctor” is justifiable homicide.”
I know your sorry about your “foggy connection”…but if what you meant to say (whatever that was) didn’t connect to you knowing bio, biogen, and biophy, then why bring it up in such a short, to the point, comment response?
I’ll answer the rest later, gotta go to class!
Jim Webber,
Oh, quickly again on your point 2:
you say:
”
2)Your logic dictates that you would not get involved in the prevention of a crime. Hmmm. I may be a better neighbor than you in that case. I suppose you would at least dial 911.”
in response to me saying:
“I personally don’t believe one should kill the doctor who performs an abortion, and if I was on a jury, I would vote my logic.””
This is funny because I didn’t know that members of a jury had the ability to go back in time and get “involved in the prevention” of the “crime” in question. Why do you think jury members can prevent crimes then rather just decide if a crime was committed???? I think I might be a better neighbor then you though, I’m rich, have lots of nice things, lots of friends, hot girls, parties every night, and a big ass swimming pool (who wouldn’t want to be my neighbor? lol) – plus I would call 911!!!
No jonathan – you cannot have both
try it out with anything you want – here is a simple one for you to try – step out side your house with out leaving your house
here – try this – try breathing without breathing
or this – try sleeping and staying awake at the same time
again – as it always seems to come down to it – you refuse to recognize what is and desire to bend or minipulate just so you don’t have to say you are wrong – well my friend – since you won’t say it – i will – your wrong – you cannot have both – either they are involved or they are not
I speculate that since you won’t admit it we are also again at yet another impasse between us and we will not conclude this conversation either – too bad – it might have been an interesting one
Jonathan
Your calling 911 doesn’t make sense – you just finished arguing for yourself being a jurer and not able to prevent the crime – so why would you call 911 as a jurer? – LOL
JimW,
Don’t doctors and med schools use corpses all the time for research?
Why would stem cells from a fetus be wrong?
JimK,
There is the proposal that fetal stem cells should be used for research. The existing lines (27 of them) have been used for research as per early G W Bush policy. But there has not been a single scientific advance due to fetal stem cell research thus far. Nothing, nada, none. In fact all advances have been from adult stem cells. All. The argument is not to be viewed as scientific at all rather it is the struggle between Mengula (Hitlers doctor)evolutionists and repeatable biogenetic experiments. This argument is between evolutionists and intelligent design folks. It really is that simple. Leading atheists such as Dr. Richard Dawkins recognize intelligent design, but he states that we are an experiment placed here from outer space aliens. Well, Okay. At least he sees that we are not at the top of the chart. It is a start. lol……….
Since it is not illeagle to terminate a pregnancy before six months (Roe) there is the reasoned argument that we should start a pregnancy in order to produce fetal stem cells for research purposes. Destroy the fetus (Latin for infant)but in my view that is a predetemined taking of a life and the view of unafraid biogenetic scientists who recognize when life begins.
Ergo, …….I vote my conscience (FIJA) regardless of how faulty others may think my reasoning to be. It matters less.
Jonathan,
This was YOUR topic. I will not go to other sources for an answer I expected from you. If you can not answer the question please do not expect me to do your research. You may have to go to class, I have completed all the classes and have other things to do that are just as important as your classes. (And be careful to “Test everything” you hear in your classes – I assume you are in a government school, but if not please disregard this side comment) My time is at least as valuable as yours, so please respect that I have no time to chase “clues to my thinking” when you are the one who brought up the topic.
In Reply, Please spell my name correctly . lol …..I’m just sayin’…… one “b” is all I can afford…. JimW
Jimk,
I was referring to being his neighbor lol.
Jim Weber,
I didn’t ask you for anything that would regard this not being my topic. I didn’t ask you for research, I didn’t ask for your time, I didn’t ask you about your transcripts. I didn’t ask about your topically irrelevant knowledge in biology. But thanks. I just answered your question about the doctor killing circles with some homework.
Your comment is non-responsive in every way shape and form to the corrections I laid to you before. I guess that means I was right. By the way, When did I ask you for “clues to your thinking…??”
I don’t test anything unless I feel it should be tested. I’m not a victim of public school corruption and I attend a private university, the University of Miami. I am pre-med, pre-law, doubled major in Neuroscience with a subspecialty in Neuropsychology and a second major in political science. I have had my political science degree for a year now and I am only 21….so yah, I guess our time is equally valuable. I know you didn’t ask to hear any of this…but just in case.
Don’t kill any doctors if your ever in the box.
JimW,
In your response to Jimk,
You point out the obvious when you explain how something would have no technological advance at the point it is illegal. I don’t know about Hitler’s Doctor and biological experiments, but I definitely agree this is a religious issue. However, while a religious issue, it is infinitely more of a science vs. government issue.
Starting a pregnancy to produce fetal cells is an issue that should be left up to the woman and her consent to do so, maintaining the pregnancy is still not viable (6 month threshold).
JimW,
I thought it was illegal to do fetal stem cell research at this point – so I guess there will NOT be any advances until that ban is lifted. Bringing up that statement was meaningless here since there is nothing that can be done until the law is changed. Also, since there is ONLY adult stem research that is legal at this point – it stands to reason that any results thus far come from adult stem research. What exactly is the point of the paragraph?
Your second paragraph brings in a more moral argument worthy of discussing. Should we produce fetus for the express purpose of stem cell research. Of course, you and I will disagree here. Because I don’t believe in God as you recognize him. In my eyes, if the party carrying the fetus voluntarily assumes this responsibility by using her body as a tool then I tend to think its OK.
Fetal stem cell research uses the existing 27 lines. There are no new(er) lines. That is the nut of the debate. Should we produce more, ………?
I want to do a little follow up hear just so we are all on the same page.
Fetal stem cell research is legal.
Government sponsored fetal stem cell research was discontinued untill GWBush reauthorized the research of the existing 27 lines owned by the government.
Government should not be paying for research, period. Perhaps you can make an argument for “National Security” I do not know.
The question/debate is this: Should the government sponser additional fetal stem cell research?
No advances have been made by the private sector, they have pretty much abandoned the funding, but not all, because they are much more successful with adult stem cells.
Jonathan;
It is so gratifying to know that you are not a victim of public education, that is why I asked that you disregard the comment in your case. I was just curious. It really is an uphill battle with fresh grads from government schools.
What I meant about my time was that you wanted to send me off to a video for your answer and I usually do not have the time. I, like you I’m sure, get lots of FWD/LINK/ mail and I never read them due to lack of time unless it is from a friend or family member. And even 50% of those I discard.
I am not sure of what it is you won, but congratulations. I look forward to meeting you some day as well as the day I can call you Doctor Jon……. or Esquire Jon …. or both. America needs people such as yourself to lead us, perhaps now as much as when the country first broke from the King. Good luck in all you do.
Jim Weber,
If you didn’t want the answer – or have time to look at the answer, then you shouldn’t have asked the question.
We have met before at the BLP meetings, your a real go-getter. lol…
JimW,
I was not privy to the fact that fetal stem cell research was legal. However, I must agree with you about government funding none-the-less. I do not believe that the government should fund any of this research either. I don’t think they should fund ANY research at all. Not even the space program. It should all be private.
I see Roeder got life with parole after 25 years for killing that abortion doctor in Kansas. He shot the doctor has he was coming out of church and claimed he did it because he “believed the doctor posed an immediate danger to unborn children”.
LOL – guess this leads credence to the Minority Report idea. He killed the doctor outside of a church because he thought the doctor will kill children in the future. What a waste. Now we see that such justice is invalid as well. Wonder how long it will be before the government passes a law to make such “thought police” legal.
Yah Jimk,
The “Thought police” are coming soon. Quick, wrap your head in aluminum foil!!!!!
They are already here – they call it hate crimes….. Oh crap now I need another roll of foil ………
This ends the discussion for me on this topic. Really enjoyed it. Thanks all………. JimW