Libertarians and Abortion
Apr. 5th, 2003 05:15 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
guslLibertarians for Life
Libertarians are usually pro-choice. "Why?", one might ask, "it's life liberty and property. The life of the child belongs to him/herself, not to the mother. Killing the foetus is a clear violation of his/her right to life.".
Many libertarians (I think) say:
"If I don't have the right to do it, neither does the state, so if I'm not willing to punish the murderous mother or doctor myself, then it shouldn't be illegal."(*)
But this argument also applies to infanticide, which should make it an unpopular choice of arguments. (I'm not saying that should illegal either: how often does a parent kill his/her own children? I am wearing my moderator hat, so I shall remain agnostic through the discussion.)
When does a child begin to own himself?
Full rights aren't given until people turn at least 18 in most places around the world. Obviously, the development is continuous, so these laws must be imperfect.
In the womb, the bodies are connected, so we can't assume inseparability. This means that even if all the criteria against abortion are met, it is still questionable whether the mother has the right to end the foetus's life, since it is, in a way, part of herself.
Practicality:
Rights and Enforcement
If a right isn't enforceable, is it still a right?
Self-Support
If the child can't feed himself, or secure protection for his own life, does he still have a right to life? If so, does this entail that parents must also care for the child?
--------------------------
That was the idea I wanted to focus on, but, as usual, I got carried away.
Libertarians are usually pro-choice. "Why?", one might ask, "it's life liberty and property. The life of the child belongs to him/herself, not to the mother. Killing the foetus is a clear violation of his/her right to life.".
Many libertarians (I think) say:
"If I don't have the right to do it, neither does the state, so if I'm not willing to punish the murderous mother or doctor myself, then it shouldn't be illegal."(*)
But this argument also applies to infanticide, which should make it an unpopular choice of arguments. (I'm not saying that should illegal either: how often does a parent kill his/her own children? I am wearing my moderator hat, so I shall remain agnostic through the discussion.)
When does a child begin to own himself?
Full rights aren't given until people turn at least 18 in most places around the world. Obviously, the development is continuous, so these laws must be imperfect.
In the womb, the bodies are connected, so we can't assume inseparability. This means that even if all the criteria against abortion are met, it is still questionable whether the mother has the right to end the foetus's life, since it is, in a way, part of herself.
Practicality:
Rights and Enforcement
If a right isn't enforceable, is it still a right?
Self-Support
If the child can't feed himself, or secure protection for his own life, does he still have a right to life? If so, does this entail that parents must also care for the child?
--------------------------
That was the idea I wanted to focus on, but, as usual, I got carried away.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-04-05 10:40 am (UTC)for example, look at the way america treats the mentally ill and the elderly. it is shameful and often cruel and abusive. these are people who, for various reasons, cannot defend their own rights. the gov't, instead of protecting these people's rights, subjects them to cruel and ignominious conditions, which often defy even the most basic civil liberties. i have witnessed first hand the treatment of people in convalescent homes and have personally experienced being locked up in psych ward for a brief period of time. the things i saw and experienced were truly appalling.