Thank-you for the nice detailed response. Personally, I am
pleased at the level of civility this thread has taken. Thanks to
all of us, especially TLP, such normally volatile topics can
actually be discussed rationally.
Fetuses are not unable to exercise rights because they are being
prevented/violated; they are unable because they are inherently
unable. Plus, chronologically speaking, a fetus did not once have
rights (or the ability to exercise them). Do you have another
analogy (other than "being tied up")?
I'm surprised you didn't remind me that a fetus at least has the
one most fundamental rights: to live. So I will be the devil and
remind myself. Then I will reply to myself that a fetus is not
(AFAIK) even able to show a desire to live, at least not an
independent one. Can it demonstrate in any way that it does not
(or does) want to be aborted or terminated?
I don't know that my previously posted viewpoint can be described
as "unprincipled", even by libertarians. MOST principles,
especially ones like these that include more than just science,
have only "more" or "less" bases, not absolute (i.e., totally
dispositive) ones. If the latter, it is only a luxury - BUT, how
do you ever know for sure? OOH, when a decision is required, use
of available evidence is only prudent. OTOH, how can you know
when any evidence or information isn't all there is? The whole
concept of "a lack of sufficient evidence (to make a principled
decision)" seems flawed. Making said excuse regarding abortion is
akin to drug warriors making same regarding marijuana "we simply
don't know enough yet". Well of course we never "know enough",
but the marijuana prohibitionist claim is obviously suspicious -
partially because you can't prove a negative (but that's both why
it works and doesn't work). How do you know for sure that more
information, that does not yet exist, exists out there somewhere
in the future to be learned? So the claim turns out to be a
logical fallacy, and is no reason to refrain from taking a "firm"
position. Positions are only based on available information. We
never really know when a position "lacks full information"; we
simply amend positions when new information arrives to contradict
the old. Other than the most logical, I don't think libertarians
demand such definite criteria and such fixed formulae.
Libertarians respect the principle of individual rights and the
NAP, not because it creates absolute/total freedom for all, but
because it creates MORE freedom than any known alternative. The
evidence for the principle is not that no ones' rights are ever
violated, but that the fewest rights are violated.
Simply stated:
If a decision is necessary, you make the best one possible. A
decision is necessary because both fetuses and pregnant women can
not have the same rights when the women want abortions.
-Mark
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
------------------------
Mark,
You write:
> Seems like a real/separate body is required to even exercise
most
> rights.
That line of reasoning may just get you somewhere. I can think of
one
major objection to it, but it's definitely worth exploring.
The objection: Possession of a right and exercise of that right
may
not necessarily be the same issue. If I tie you up and sew your
mouth
shut, I'm obviously suppressing your right to speak ... but does
that
right go away, or do you still possess it even though you can't
exercise it at the moment?
> Seems like these and other (many) fundamental differences
should
> be plenty on which to base a decision to draw the line at
birth,
> and feel confident that it's a good decision.
Now you're moving into non-ideological -- and therefore, in the
eyes
of many libertarians, unprincipled -- territory.
You're basically saying "even if we don't know, we have to have
some
sort of criteria, and this seems like a reasonable set to go
with. Chill."
That's a very different approach than the typical ideological
approach
taken by libertarians. Paul's is an extreme example of the
ideological
approach on the issue of abortion, but he's not alone, and I tend
to
that approach on most issues myself, said approach being:
"A+B=C, period. That's it. That's all. That's the only
libertarian
formula. If you don't agree with it, you're wrong, you're not a
libertarian, and moreover you are a statist, anti-freedom
asshole."
As it happens, I haven't found such a "formula" on abortion that,
in
my view, satisfies libertarian criteria, and ultimately my own
position on abortion is similar to yours in form, although not in
content.
I've allowed myself that deviation in form because the questions
of
content are so unsettled, and I assume that your own deviation
has a
similar basis. However, many libertarians aren't going to accept
that
deviation from form is necessary under any circumstances, and
many
non-libertarians are simply going to disagree with your (or any
other)
assessment of content.
Regards,
Tom
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
