 Poll
|
| Question: |
In which of the following cases should abortion be Legal/Allowed?
| None |
   6 (14%) |
| Life of Mother in Danger or Serious Health Danger |
6 (14%) |
| Rape, Life, or Any Health of Mother |
8 (18.6%) |
| Only Before third trimester |
13 (30.2%) |
| All cases, right up to birth |
10 (23.3%) |
|
|
| Total Voters: 43 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Abortion Poll: Are Free Staters Pro-Life or Pro-Choice on Average? (Read 8838 times)
|
|
time4liberty
|
while i consider abortion to be an awful act in which i would never participate, it's not worth the exist of a government to make it illegal. Likewise, I would never support extortion to fund any sort of enforcement mechanism -- for any crime. I think something closer to gandhi's idea of swaraj, would be more appropriate. Congratulations... you're both pro-choice. There are plenty of pro-choice individuals who don't like abortion, and wish it would never happen, and even peaceably argue against it. As long as you oppose the forcible elimination of free choice, you're pro-choice. Or, as the famous bumper sticker says, "libertarians are pro-choice about everything." I don't necessarily oppose some degree of force as a response to late term abortions -- perhaps to require restitution -- because I personally do consider late term abortions to be murder. I oppose extorting money from others, however, to pay for enforcement (i.e. taxes/central government). I would guess, given current attitudes on these topics, that in a pluralistic, free society, there would be communities in which abortion is prohibited, and others where it is not. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
I don't necessarily oppose some degree of force as a response to late term abortions -- perhaps to require restitution -- because I personally do consider late term abortions to be murder. Certainly. As said, once the baby is viable outside the womb, intentionally killing it is necessarily murder, just as stabbing a non-paying tenant while he sleeps and dumping him out the door would be murder; if he refused to leave, you could be justified in forcibly removing him, but you have to give him the chance to leave peacefully, first. I oppose extorting money from others, however, to pay for enforcement (i.e. taxes/central government).
I would guess, given current attitudes on these topics, that in a pluralistic, free society, there would be communities in which abortion is prohibited, and others where it is not. As long as those present all freely agreed to such rules, they are perfectly acceptable. Individuals in a libertarian society may set up as many or as few rules as they like, so long as those rules have the unanimous consent of those who would be subject to them. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
time4liberty
|
As long as those present all freely agreed to such rules, they are perfectly acceptable. Individuals in a libertarian society may set up as many or as few rules as they like, so long as those rules have the unanimous consent of those who would be subject to them.
My opinion is that rules against harming persons or property do not require unanimous consent. The town thief or murderer should be stopped, regardless if he consents to be stopped, and he should be held accountable for his actions. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
As long as those present all freely agreed to such rules, they are perfectly acceptable. Individuals in a libertarian society may set up as many or as few rules as they like, so long as those rules have the unanimous consent of those who would be subject to them. My opinion is that rules against harming persons or property do not require unanimous consent. The town thief or murderer should be stopped, regardless if he consents to be stopped, and he should be held accountable for his actions. The NAP is the default "law" of all. It is the bare minimum necessary for civilized interactions. Only rules in excess of that require additional consent. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
time4liberty
|
As long as those present all freely agreed to such rules, they are perfectly acceptable. Individuals in a libertarian society may set up as many or as few rules as they like, so long as those rules have the unanimous consent of those who would be subject to them. My opinion is that rules against harming persons or property do not require unanimous consent. The town thief or murderer should be stopped, regardless if he consents to be stopped, and he should be held accountable for his actions. The NAP is the default "law" of all. It is the bare minimum necessary for civilized interactions. Only rules in excess of that require additional consent. Agreed. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TheMagicBullet
|
"I was also a little concerned when I heard that, that if I move to New Hampshire, all I'm going to be doing is arguing about abortion with the people I work with and live around, considering the very low percent of pro-life people who live in New Hampshire, according to one or two polls at least."
Powerline, I can tell you haven't been to NH to visit FSPers yet, because unless you are absolutely night-and-day obsessed and thinking about abortion (weird), you will have a lot more important things to focus on than a social wedge issue. I certainly hope that's not what holds you back from making the move. There are plenty who feel the same as you, and plenty who will heartily disagree as you can see from the responses here. But there are so many more issues we focus on, that are much greater threats to life and liberty, than the fairly low incidence of abortion. It had a peak in 1980 and since then has pretty much steadily declined as birth control and awareness have increased.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time4liberty
|
I've almost never had an abortion discussion with an FSPer.
FSPers generally all recognize that this is one of a few issues where there are legitimate pro-liberty arguments to be made on both sides.
Mainly, I talk with folks about how we can help move society and government in a pro-liberty direction.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
There can never be a 'pro-liberty' argument made against abortion...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time4liberty
|
There can never be a 'pro-liberty' argument made against abortion...
 Ok, correction: Just avoid JEM, and you'll be fine. See dalebert's response earlier for a more typical attitude towards this issue -- one I agree with -- as well as TMB's reply above. Libertarians tend to be split almost right down the middle on this issue. That's why the Libertarian Party tried to stay out of it for a very long time, though recently they decided to make pro-choice part of their platform. That was considered a mistake by a lot of people due to the inherent divisiveness of it, even by many who were themselves pro-choice.
I would not be surprised of free-staters were similarly split. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 10:20:13 pm by time4liberty »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
JEM is usually wrong, but he's right, here.
The mother's right to control her own body is absolute. Anything arguing in opposition to her self-ownership is not a pro-liberty argument.
It's very sad that the baby cannot survive eviction, but that cannot eliminate the mother's rights, any more than suffering from starvation would allow you to cut off my arm for your lunch. If you starve to death because I won't let you eat my arm, that's a very sad thing, but it cannot change the fact that I have every right to refuse you, just as the mother has every right to refuse to carry a baby.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
FrugalFannie
|
What happened to 'Live and Let Live?'
What about the idea that people should have the right to do what they want so long as they harm no one else?
And what about accepting responsibility for one's actions? After all, the person who got pregnant, along with their partner, decided to have sex. Wouldn't abortion be harming another person?
This is the one subject I struggle with. I am a woman and have lost a child and have a 14 year old son now. I am also an atheist so I reject arguments based on religious belief as they have no basis for me (i.e. abortion is prohibited according to your church because it is considered a sin), though I respect your choice to not abort based on your rlifious beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
slothman
|
The mother's right to control her own body is absolute. Anything arguing in opposition to her self-ownership is not a pro-liberty argument.
Does the fetus count as her body or seperate? If it is a person then it isn't her's nor can it be killed, it just happens to be inside of her. If it isn't a person then you could think of it as a parasite and be able to abort it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
The mother's right to control her own body is absolute. Anything arguing in opposition to her self-ownership is not a pro-liberty argument. Does the fetus count as her body or seperate? If it is a person then it isn't her's nor can it be killed, it just happens to be inside of her. If it isn't a person then you could think of it as a parasite and be able to abort it. It cannot possibly be part of her body. But it doesn't matter that it's a person. That fact is irrelevant, because it is inside her body, where it has no right to be. Being inside someone else's property is a privilege, and, barring a contract to the contrary, an nonpaying guest can be evicted any time the owner wants. Yes, it will die if evicted, but that has no bearing on the morality of the situation. If I have no place to go, and will end up homeless and probably die, does that mean I can just insist that my landlord cannot kick me out, even if I stop paying the rent? Or, as I mentioned earlier, if I'm starving, can I cut off your arm and eat it? If I don't, I'll die; does that give me the right to force you to give up part of your body to my use? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
FrugalFannie
|
But it doesn't matter that it's a person. That fact is irrelevant, because it is inside her body, where it has no right to be. Being inside someone else's property is a privilege, and, barring a contract to the contrary, an nonpaying guest can be evicted any time the owner wants. A baby doesn't appear through some magical occurence. A baby is conceived because of an act committed by the adults. To state it has no right to be inside anothers body is, well I don't know how to describe that argument. The baby is not an invader. A baby has no control over it's conception unlike a person who chooses to live in someone else's home. If you move into my house without permission am I allowed to kill you if you are simply occupying space and not threatening my being? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
