Slashdot Mirror

The difference between miscarriage and abortion is that miscarriage is not the willful action of the mother. You can't blame someone for the result of their natural biological processes.

Yes, miscarriage is unfortunate, but I fail to see how it relates to abortion.

As for some science, this doctor can explain better than I.

how can I be libertarian (note small "l") and not?

I think one could be "pro-life" and still a libertarian. Libertarianism's basic principle is that, under justice, each of us (especially the government) has the obligation not to aggress against anyone. Aggress in this case includes unfair tax burdens and over-reaching laws as well as violent actions.

So one could argue that aborting a fetus is aggressing against the fetus. Now, whether or not the fetus falls under the category of 'anyone' is where the age old debate would begin again.

I'm just saying, there is an argument to be made where someone could, without conflict, be both libertarian and pro-life (Not that I am or am not either of those).

Fine, what is the Libertarian stance on abortion then? I suspect they would be against making abortion illegal.

Most yes, there are however a at least some pro-life libertarians, and the most prominent libertarian think tank is officially agnostic. The reason being that IF you accept that the unborn is a human life with rights then the laws against abortion are as legitimate as laws against any other form of homicide... this is a question that is beyond the ken of libertarian philosophy in and of itself. The libertarians governing philosophy can only be applied AFTER that initial position on whether the unborn have rights or not has been answered.

See: Libertarians for Life. Also see some secular arguments against abortion. Folks, you don't have to be a Christian Fundamentalist to oppose abortion.

Badnarik is actually pro-life, just he doesn't believe in legislation against it. Also you can check out libertarians for life to see that there is such thing as a pro-lifer libertarian.

More importantly, how did he get there? Either he's the result of consensual sex, or of rape. In the first case, conception is a foreseeable consequence; one has the ability to not have sex, and one hardly has the right to murder the results of one's free choice. The second case is somewhat more difficult, until one recognises that the conception is a second crime committed upon the mother by the rapist. Recall the saying of your own mother, though: two wrongs don't make a right. How does it make things right for the mother to kill her misbegotten child? What has he done which merits death?

An ectopic pregnancy is a lifeboat situation: there's no good answer, only a least-bad answer (similar to the case of rape): either both mother and chile die, or the child dies. Simple utilitarian calculus says that the child must die. Morality says that the necessity is to be mourned, but no blame can be attached to either mother or physician (although I imagine both would feel rotten).

I cannot accept that a parent should have the power of life and death of his or her children; I thought that sort of thing had gone out of style with the Romans.

If the embryo is human, abortion is a grave wrong; if the embryo is not, abortion is a right. Since I'm convinced the embryo is, in fact, human and that the initiation of violence is something to be avoided, I must therefor oppose abortion.

Regarding the goals of the pro-life movement, no doubt you are correct that a change of culture is required. As a matter of fact, I happen to believe that we are in the midst of exactly such a change. Just as scientists and physicians began to turn against abortion in the nineteenth century as they began to understand the nature of natal development, so too the general culture is beginning to turn against it as we all begin to understand the same thing.

Remember, though: if the unborn are as human as you and I, then abortion is worse than Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all put together. It's worse than the Moloch-worshipping Carthaginians. Some thirty-forty million or so in the US alone, not to mention Europe and Asia. Let's say seventy to one hundred million who never even got a chance. That's pretty awful.

Embryonic stem cell research is not fundamentally different from the Chinese practise of executing prisoners for their organs, nor from researching hypothermia by freezing human subjects. That is, when oen realises that the embryo is as human as Kerry, Bush or Michael Jordan.

That's the crux of the matter. If the embryo is human, killing him to get cells is no different from the Chinese executing convicts to harvest their organs; if the embryo is not human, then it's no different from killing a dog or a cat for medical research.

Since there are good , scientific reasons to believe that the embryo is a human being, then there is a strong case to be made against embryonic stem cell research.

One must also consider the fact that adult stem cell research is proving much more promising. Given that there are not infinite funds, would you spend money on less-hopeful research or more-hopeful research? To put it in other terms, would you rather invest $100 in an investment with a 6% return or one with a 37% return?

That's the crux of the matter. If the embryo is human, killing him to get cells is no different from the Chinese executing convicts to harvest their organs; if the embryo is not human, then it's no different from killing a dog or a cat for medical research.

Since there are good , scientific reasons to believe that the embryo is a human being, then there is a strong case to be made against embryonic stem cell research.

One must also consider the fact that adult stem cell research is proving much more promising. Given that there are not infinite funds, would you spend money on less-hopeful research or more-hopeful research? To put it in other terms, would you rather invest $100 in an investment with a 6% return or one with a 37% return?

That's the crux of the matter. If the embryo is human, killing him to get cells is no different from the Chinese executing convicts to harvest their organs; if the embryo is not human, then it's no different from killing a dog or a cat for medical research.

Since there are good , scientific reasons to believe that the embryo is a human being, then there is a strong case to be made against embryonic stem cell research.

One must also consider the fact that adult stem cell research is proving much more promising. Given that there are not infinite funds, would you spend money on less-hopeful research or more-hopeful research? To put it in other terms, would you rather invest $100 in an investment with a 6% return or one with a 37% return?

That's the crux of the matter. If the embryo is human, killing him to get cells is no different from the Chinese executing convicts to harvest their organs; if the embryo is not human, then it's no different from killing a dog or a cat for medical research.

Since there are good , scientific reasons to believe that the embryo is a human being, then there is a strong case to be made against embryonic stem cell research.

One must also consider the fact that adult stem cell research is proving much more promising. Given that there are not infinite funds, would you spend money on less-hopeful research or more-hopeful research? To put it in other terms, would you rather invest $100 in an investment with a 6% return or one with a 37% return?

You do not mention abortion on your page of issues. Are you a Libertarian for Life? Why or why not?

Says quite a lot of physicians and embryologists. Also the English dictionary. "Human being" means "homo sapiens". Biologically a fetus is an instance of the species homo sapiens.

Some references for you. I'll make sure they all come from non-religious sites, since I wouldn't want to offend your sensibilities with articles of faith...

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
Libertarians for Life

Some specific articles:

Abortion and the Question of the Person, and, Why a Human Embryo or Fetus is Not a Parasite

Says quite a lot of physicians and embryologists. Also the English dictionary. "Human being" means "homo sapiens". Biologically a fetus is an instance of the species homo sapiens.

Some references for you. I'll make sure they all come from non-religious sites, since I wouldn't want to offend your sensibilities with articles of faith...

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
Libertarians for Life

Some specific articles:

Abortion and the Question of the Person, and, Why a Human Embryo or Fetus is Not a Parasite

Says quite a lot of physicians and embryologists. Also the English dictionary. "Human being" means "homo sapiens". Biologically a fetus is an instance of the species homo sapiens.

Some references for you. I'll make sure they all come from non-religious sites, since I wouldn't want to offend your sensibilities with articles of faith...

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
Libertarians for Life

Some specific articles:

Abortion and the Question of the Person, and, Why a Human Embryo or Fetus is Not a Parasite

No, not at all. I am saying that an embryo is the equivalent of a 24-year-old in exactly the same fashion that a 12-yr-old is the equivalent of a 72-yr-old. There's no magical moment at which one becomes human, no easy-to-define point before which there is naught and after which there is something. Except for conception: before it, there are naught but gametes; after it, there is something new. But everything else is a change in quality, not a change in kind.

Prove to me then that a tomato seed has all the properties of tomato plant heavy laden with plump ripe fruit.

Why? It's immaterial. An infant hasn't the properties of a four-yr-old--but we don't allow him to be slain. A four-yr-old hasn't the properties of an eight-year-old--but we don't allow him to be slain. That an embryo hasn't the properties of an infant does not necessarily mean that we should allow him to be slain.

Obviously, nobody will argue with you that a seed or embryo has potential to become something else. The issue is simply this: until it actually becomes something else, it is not that thing.

That's the key: an embryo is a human being, for any useful definition thereof. He's not his mother: although half his genes are hers, half are not. He's not an eggplant. He's not a fish. He's not a chunk of quartz. What is he, then? My answer is that he's human. What would you argue--that it's a...?

Here is an easy experiment. Go to the bank. Deposit 1 unit of your currency. Do some math, explain to the manager that you will have a million in X years and then ask for a million back (1 == 1m because of interest - at least it will eventually grow into a 1m). Bring ear plugs when you do this, the laughter will be deafening.

Once again, you don't seem to get it. I don't care about the future properties of an embryo, but about its present nature. A mental defective hasn't the same properties that a normal man has--he's certainly less than you or I. Should he be terminated? An infant hasn't the properties of a full-grown man. Should he be terminated? It's not about what something will be: it's about what it is. And an embryo is most certainly a human being.

What's so magical about passing through the birth canal? Being squeezed through a tube over a period of hours makes one human? It's legal to kill immediately before one exits, but not immediately after?

See Libertarians for Life for an secular, scientific argument on why conception is the only reasonable starting point for human life. If this were just a moral issue, I'd agree with you. Morality is not a fit subject of legislation. But it's not: it's most certainly a legal issue, for murder is appropriately legislated against.

Yes--and those embryos are no less human beings than are infants, children, adults or even teenagers. They were killed, and in the vast majority of cases they were murdered (obv. there are cases where it is necessary to abort). It is not right that they should be used for medical experimentation--who can rightly give permission? Certainly not their parents who murdered them.

Pragmatism beats 4 religious aces.

I'm not taking a religious stance (although I am, in fact, and Orthodox Christian)--I don't believe that it's proper to force one's morals or religion on others. I also--and I recognise that in this day and age it's quite unfashionable--don't believe that it is proper to kill innocents. The secular argument against abortion is quite compelling--see Libertarians for Life, which is founded and run by atheists.

I wish to run my life as I see fit and let you do the same--right up until you harm another. And abortion is by its very nature harming another human being (the embryo is not its mother; it is a distinct individual): it's killing, and is almost always murder. That is, abortion is acceptable in exactly those cases where killing is acceptable.

The opposition arises because the embryo is seen to be an individual. That is what religious opinion on the matter boils down to, that this thing in question is an individual. And that means there is no ontological difference between the embryo and me. I'm just bigger.

The masses aren't all coming from one side of the political spectrum either. There are Democrats for Life and Libertarians for Life.

It is a little ironic that this is framed as religion vs science because it was really science that influenced opinion on the question of life. During the 19th century embryology was a new field and you had doctors that came to the conlusion that religion was wrong about life beginning at quickening (when fetal movement is first felt) and that the laws of the country were also deficient in that regard. It was the American Medical Association that went about trying to change public opinion and the laws. They actually didn't even get much support from churches at the time. But you'll notice that most of the laws overturned in Roe vs Wade came from this time. So maybe if the AMA hadn't gone around enlightening people in the 1860s then this stem cell issue wouldn't be an issue.

I've helped to archive some of the AMA's stuff on the web. The questions they posed are still very relevent and it's an interesting read. That's really where the whole issue began as I see it.

I wanted to wait till I had time to sufficiently comment on this. You've made some great points, and if you'll have the patience to read through this, I'll try to show you more of my point.

Wait long enough. That's exactly the point. The side I'm on says, "Wait." You haven't proved that embryo is not a person. How can you take its life unless you are certain you are not depriving a person of his or her life? You wouldn't drop poison in a water supply hoping you don't kill anyone; you avoid taking the potentially harmful action because it is wrong to put people at risk that way.

Here's two possible facts, with two possible responses on our part, for a total of four hypothetical situations:

Assume an embryo is a person, and assume we grant an embryo the same protections under the law that we grant to all other human beings. If this is the situation, we have taken no wrong actions. (One might say it's wrong to not use the embryo's stem cells to save lives, but we don't find any other case where it's considered wrong to not take a life to cure someone else's problem. I might donate my liver upon my death, but I'd like to keep it while I'm alive, and I'm not a criminal for doing so.)

#2: Assume an embryo is a person and we deny embryos the same protections under the law that we guarantee to other people. In this case we have done something wrong: we are killing people (embryos) without just cause. (In general, it is unjust to act as an aggressor against someone else who has been non-aggressive toward you.)

#3: Assume an embryo is not a person and we do not grant the rights to embryos that we grant to people under the law. In this case we have done nothing wrong because we have not taken the lives of people.

#4: Assume an embryo is not a person, but we grant embryos the rights that people have under the law. In this case, while our decision was groundless, we have done nothing wrong. Even though in this case the embryo is not a person, we are still not taking any lives.

Now, as you said, we cannot prove which of the possible facts is true: the embryo is or is not a person. We cannot control the facts, we can only control our actions. We must choose the action that guarantees we are doing nothing wrong. We must make sure we take no action that might result in the loss of life of a person.

The fact that some people think that an embryo is not a person is not a reason to declare the embryo not to be so. If the embryo is a person, then it is not a dispute between the two sides of this issue; it is a dispute between the defenseless, nonaggressive unborn person and the aggressors who would deprive this person of his life and rights under the law. As long as a chance remains that that embryo is a person, nobody can justly say that the law should not treat the embryo as a person. The majority should not be able to vote rights away from a minority, especially a defenseless and nonaggressive minority.

When we execute a criminal our law insists that the criminal must be proved guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Well, I say that if we are going to end the life of an embryo, we must prove it to be a non-person beyond a shadow of a doubt. The jury is the entire country, and we have not come to a unanimous verdict declaring the embryo to be a non-person. Thus, there can be no legal authority for depriving that person or possible person of its life.

Phew! Did you read all that? My thanks if you did. I'm not interested in forcing my belief system upon anyone (although as you can see, I sure like talking about it :) ). I am interested in making sure my government guarantees my rights and the rights of all those around me, including those who cannot speak for themselves.

Thanks for the talk. I've been just enraptured the last 24 hours or so as I've seen so many intelligent, civil discussions in this thread between people on both sides. Of course, I browse at 4+, so there's probably some less civil stuff down there I missed! :) Thanks for helping to keep it nice.

A great link someone else gave out was Libertarians for Life, which made an entirely non-religious case for protecting the unborn, much as I hope I have done here. I found the site echoed a lot of my thinking about how the law should work on this issue. I am not interested in using the government to force my beliefs on people, so my opinion on the legality of taking an embryo's life is not directly based on my religious beliefs. There are plenty of things I think are wrong that I would never ask the government to outlaw. In a nutshell my legal stance is based only on my belief of what a government should do, which is, that it should guarantee my rights extend as far as possible but stop at you.

There's a chance you might not agree with me, but I'll tell you what's in my mind so you can understand my thinking about this issue. I believe that throwing embryos away is murder. I recognize that that brings up a lot of unanswerable questions, such as, "What are we supposed to do with all those embryos? It would be impossible to bring all of them to maturity and have them born!" I have no answer for this, or probably any other questions this line of thinking brings up. I can only tell you how I see it at the moment.

All of my beliefs on this subject stem from my acceptance of an embryo as a human being. That is based on the embryos genetic identity as a human being. I am addressing how we should construct our laws as an honorable people, not religious questions of how should we live to please God and so on. Someone else on this thread posted a great link yesterday that makes an entirely non-religious case for accepting embryos as persons before the law, Libertarians for Life. I read parts of it today and found that it said a lot of things I already believed.

There are a lot of hard questions about this. The fact that we cannot answer all of these questions, or that some of the answers may be unpleasant, should not guide us as we make decisions that are right for everyone. I ask that we prove the embryo to not be a person beyond a shadow of a doubt before we deprive him of his rights before the law.

My post wasn't a troll-it was a serious comment on an important subject. Many folks have been arguing for embryonic stem cell collection because of the benefits to mankind. The Nazis irradiated, sterilised and murdered because they thought it was to the benefit of mankind. `Benefit to mankind' is not a sufficient reason to murder. Self defense and punishment are the only two justifications for murder that I can agree with.

But of course, if the embryo is not human that it's not murder to kill it. Read the arguments at Libertarians for Life; they address the many reasons why an embryo is as human as you & I.

The argument is essentially that there is no dividing line between embryo and human, but rather a continuous progression, just as there is no clear dividing line between infant and man, no point on one side of which we have a baby and on the other side of which we have a productive member of society. Thus abortion is the killing of a human being--one who did not ask to be placed where he is--and thus murder. There is, however, a clear line between gametes and zygote/embryo, and thus contraception is not murder.

The argument against cloning is essentially that it requires the production of massive number of horribly damaged and diseased men for every whole man it makes. That's not an ethical thing to do.

So far as organ cloning--who cares? It's a good idea, and I cannot wait until we can do it.

There are athiest prolifers: http://www.godlessprolifers.org

And there are libertarian arguments against abortion: http://www.l4l.org

To view the issue as a "religious issue" is as incorrect to view slavery as a religious issue simply because many of the arguments surrounding its practice in the US were religious in nature.

Not all pro-lifers are radical, bible-thumping, ignorant, flat-earth, gay-bashing conservatives.

Libertarians for Life

Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians

Links to other radical and "leftist" pro-life groups

Libertarians for Life

Ah... it seems abortion is the big issue with which even Libertarians and liberty-minded individuals do not hold 100% concensus. It's definitely a toughy.