> [ModeratorNote: *IF* by the term 'libertarian policy' you mean the
policy of the USA Libertarian Party then it is already NOT 'pro
abortion' The LP policy supports a general right of women to choose
to abort their own pregnancies. That is no more 'pro abortion' than
is the LP position 'pro drugs' due to it advocating repealing govt
drug prohibition. Advocating the freedom to do something is NOT the
same as saying it should be done. -TLP ]
What I mean is primarily libertarian philosophy that drives the LP's
current policy. My involvement in this descussion began when Paul
asserted that the LP change its position to a pro abortion position.
I am moderatly contented with the LP position. While I may personaly
feel aboriton is wrong I have no desire to force a woman into
anything. I believe education and outreach, preferably of a family
and comunity level to be the proper manner to adress this, not
legislation. I have tried a few time to clerify what I am and am not
advocating, but it seems to no avail.
> [Moderator: Which, perhaps, is why you got 'drug into the black
whole of mindless debate' :) ]
Its been a while, if you recal this is the third time you have
moderated me, and all 3 times have been in response to Paul. You
would think I would have learned by now :)
> >
> [ModeratorNote: the personhood rights of which we speak are not by
us 'granted' but may or may not by us be recognized. -TLP ]
>
My question I possed was what is the libertarian stance to take a
begining point for the descussion while we debate wether or not to
recognize it. My assumption of rights was never a final assumption
but a begining point to try and more efectivly reach the fact backed
truth, and I still believe in that philosophy.
>
> [Moderator: Since you have not made a case for recognizing
personhood of this developing human life form why do you propose an
unlibertarian violation of the rights of the recognized person in
this scenario, the mother? -TLP ]
>
To clerify the basis for the case - I do this, as a starting point
for debate, seaking the same factual evidence saught from me.
To answer the question, I believe that as I still lack reasons why
that person should not be recognized, the libertarian default ought
be to assume rights untill factual evidence suggests other wise.
Wether you assume yes or no you must make an assumption to make a
point, the assumption of course can not be a final point. I make it
only as a beggining, to start some place. From my assumption that it
should be considered to have rights untill evidence suggest other
wise I apply the non aggretion to it.
The fact that the individual has not been recognized to have rights
does not imply that it does not have those rights. I am certain you
understand that. I believe the degree of violation of liberty is a
real concern as well as the application of non agression principles.
The infringement of liberty in carrying a child to term seems to
pale in comparison to the infrindgment of libertey in terminating an
individuals life. I conclude this because the later is permanant
while the former is temporary.
With out evidence suggesting otherwise, I can not default to the
comfortable prejudice that the woman with recognized rights is any
more valuable than the individual with uncertain unrecognized
rights. This is why I do not feel past atrocities are true red
herings, the victims were not recognized as having rights, and were
dehuminized in varying ways but always dehumanized. Had humans of
the past aproached those senario's assuming rights untill factual
evidence suggested other wise would we of had as many rights
violations in our past?
A part of human nature is to accept the norm as just that, the norm.
I interpret this is one of the sources for the idea of unlearning,
to become that libertarian society we must remove those learned
reactions, those comfortable prejudices. This is an ever continueing
process for both individuals and humanity as a whole. I don't find
the question "Why is an african american adult more valuable than a
2 month fetus?" obsurd because we are discussing the recognition of
that fetus as a person or not and in one real point in history
African Americans were not recognized as full persons but this is
now widley accepted as wrong while at the time it was a norm.
I am very open to change, but I can't do so with out reason, real
solid reason and I don't feel I have had sufficient reason to move
from assuming rights to determing there are no rights inherent to be
recognized. (This is long, so for reminder this statement does not
advocate legislation banning abortion, I don't advocate that and its
not why I am here posting.)
Untill reason leads me to believe otherwise I can not by default
assume the womans recognized rights are more valuable on all levels
than the potential unrecognized rights of the fetus. It goes against
my personal philosophy, and I honestly believe it is contrary to
libertarian philosophy. So from the stance that niether parties
rights are more valuable inately I apply non agression.
I feel this even proides room for special cases, such as rape where
the woman no longer has responsibility and in this scenario I can
not, and do not desire to provide any strong resistance to freedom
of choice as now both parties are victims assumed to be of equal
value. The fetus would still be an inocent victim of agression but
the stance is no longer troubled by the dilema of acountability.
The woman in the non special case scenario is not only the agressor,
but the agression is also a response to a desire to avoid the
consequences of freely undertaken actions on her part. This fact,
for me, adds to the previous justifications of aplication of non
agression and of the degree of infrindgement on liberty.
Thanks for giving me the chance to be heard.
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.
