suggested that the LP have the same stance it has now, which is that a
woman has the right to have an abortion any time she wants without any
government permission or notification of any person, group of people,
or the government. I also say that those who don't believe in
abortion should not have to pay for it, so no tax money should be used
for abortions.
The only thing I added, was that this RIGHT should be protected by an
amendment to the Constitution to stop attacks against it. The LP is
wishy-washy on this. I say all of our rights are worth protecting,
especially the right to make our own reproductive choices. The reason
we have government is to protect our rights.
This isn't a "Pro-Abortion" stance. It's a pro-rights stance. It's a
pro-libertarian stance. It's a pro-choice stance, which is consistant
with our platform and with libertarian philosophy.
--- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit"
> > [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.
