Can someone be both pro-life AND a Libertarian?

[The Charnel Expanse]

Being that Roe v. Wade was decided on the grounds of the existence of a Constitutional right to privacy and that in libertarian circles, privacy rights are considered sacrosanct, I've often wondered how it was possible for people like Ron & Rand Paul - self-styled libertarians - to be ardently in opposition to abortion rights.

On the other hand, if we're to follow the harm principle established by John Stuart Mill, godfather of libertarianism, it can be argued with much validity that in terminating a pregnancy, you're committing harm to another human being, and thus violating that principle.

So I guess the question is, are these two ideas fundamentally in conflict with one-another? And if they are, which one wins out?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

it all comes down to the life-at-conception issue, if you believe life begins at conception then terminating a pregnancy is harming another human being

if you feel life begins later in pregnancy or at birth, then its not harming another human being

 

[AaronMic22]

From what I know about the Pauls, their brand of libertarianism awards freedom until you hurt or cross property lines of another. Since they are pro-life, they think that life begins at conception; therefore, the mother is doing harm to another person via abortion.

Comically, the fetus would also be infringing on the mother's property. So... maybe the mother would rightfully be able to defend herself via abortion if the fetus threatens her well-being?

 

[bynmdsue]

maybe the stupid slut shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place. but no, it's too much to ask people to restrain their base impulses. man is but an animal so screw away.

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

maybe the stupid slut shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place.

...Something you want to talk about, sport?

 

[elbe]

I've often wondered how it was possible for people like Ron & Rand Paul - self-styled libertarians - to be ardently in opposition to abortion rights.

Ron Paul isn't a libertarian, but I don't know enough about Rand to know whether or not he is.

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

Ron Paul isn't a libertarian

Explain.

 

[elbe]

Explain.

His social views tend to run less in line with libertarianism and more in line with republicans or the constitutional party.

In 2008 he backed the constitutional party's candidate instead of the libertarian party's, the constitutional party basically supports turning the US into a christian theocracy.

 

[AaronMic22]

His social views tend to run less in line with libertarianism and more in line with republicans or the constitutional party.

In 2008 he backed the constitutional party's candidate instead of the libertarian party's, the constitutional party basically supports turning the US into a christian theocracy.

Of course, this depends on how we're defining libertarianism. He's against the drug war because government shouldn't intervene; he's against the war because he doesn't think the government should tell the world what to do; and he's for gay marriage because he's for all voluntary associations.

Those clash with traditional conservative / Republican beliefs. He's definitely constitutionalist; but again, this comes down to what a libertarian is.

The original form of libertarianism is anarcho-socialism. He's ridden the neo-libertarian wave as somebody who is seems to want as little government intervention as possible, going further than a Republican. He seems more like an anarcho-capitalist to me.

 

[elbe]

He's not a mainstream republican, that's for sure, but that doesn't mean he meshes with the libs in anything more than lipservice - he knows what side his bread is buttered on.

But at this point I'm just trying to half remember old discussions about him, so you can discount me as one man's opinion.

 

[Skeptic]

So I guess the question is, are these two ideas fundamentally in conflict with one-another? And if they are, which one wins out?

Typically, a libertarian who is pro-life would say that abortion harms another human (the fetus) which makes it like murder. Libertarians, of course, do not consider murder to be a "freedom" to be protected. So there is no contradiction (which isn't to say either idea is necessarily correct).

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

Typically, a libertarian who is pro-life would say that abortion harms another human (the fetus) which makes it like murder. Libertarians, of course, do not consider murder to be a "freedom" to be protected. So there is no contradiction (which isn't to say either idea is necessarily correct).

But then we're left with the issues of whether a) the U.S. government or courts have the right to decide whether terminating a fetus constitutes murder, when there is clearly no scientific consensus on the matter and never will be; b) the decision to terminate a pregnancy can, as such, fall under any sort of governmental or legal jurisdiction; c) who, if anyone, can be prosecuted for the violation of such laws if the first two questions are answered in the affirmative.

In other words, I can understand someone claiming Libertarian beliefs but still opposing abortion on moral grounds. But squaring the two ideas in practice becomes much trickier.

 

[thaiboxerken]

maybe the stupid slut shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place. but no, it's too much to ask people to restrain their base impulses. man is but an animal so screw away.

Wow...you really don't like women much, do you?

 

[Cactus Wren]

Typically, a libertarian who is pro-life would say that abortion harms another human (the fetus) which makes it like murder. Libertarians, of course, do not consider murder to be a "freedom" to be protected. So there is no contradiction (which isn't to say either idea is necessarily correct).

Do L/libertarians generally regard the right to use and batten upon another's bodily resources without that other's ongoing consent a "freedom" to be protected?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Do L/libertarians generally regard the right to use and batten upon another's bodily resources without that other's ongoing consent a "freedom" to be protected?

if a private pilot declines to grant ongoing consent to the presence of a passenger can he just open the door and throw the passenger out of the plane?

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

if a private pilot declines to grant ongoing consent to the presence of a passenger can he just open the door and throw the passenger out of the plane?

Bad analogy.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Bad analogy.

its apt if your a "life beings at conception" person, which is independent of being a libertarian, which is why someone can be both libertarian and pro-life

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

its apt if your a "life beings at conception" person, which is independent of being a libertarian, which is why someone can be both libertarian and pro-life

Did you bother to read my previous post?

And no, it's not apt because if a plane is still on the tarmac [i.e. just after conception] then yes, a pilot can have the passenger ejected from the plane. Haven't you ever seen that episode of Seinfeld?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Did you bother to read my previous post?

And no, it's not apt because if a plane is still on the tarmac [i.e. just after conception] then yes, a pilot can have the passenger ejected from the plane. Haven't you ever seen that episode of Seinfeld?

so your argument is that an abortion just after conception doesnt kill anyone? good luck telling that to the life-at-conception crowd

 

[Cactus Wren]

if a private pilot declines to grant ongoing consent to the presence of a passenger can he just open the door and throw the passenger out of the plane?

If that passenger is parasitizing his bodily resources without his ongoing consent, and if that's the only way to get the passenger to stop, sure.