For my Libertarian friends

Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I've already told what the only thing I believe to be the responsibility of one human with regards to another.  Axiomatic differences, then. So would you ever serve in the military?  Why or why not?

I would have served in the Revolutionary War because I found it justified, in my best interest, in the countries best interest, and no civilians would be harmed from my actions.

Going up until the present time, the only other war I agree with our entrance into is WWII. I would not have fought in that war (or deserted sometime during), because I greatly disagree with the way the war was waged.

Ok it's time for a hot one. Abortion. 

There is something else that makes ALL life (not just human) different from the rest of the things that make the universe. It's not just carbon and aminoacids and etc... There is some spark that humans, dogs, spiders, etc, have. Where does it begin? 

The T wrote: Ok it's time for a hot one. Abortion.  I'm guessing, just guessing, that even though libertarianism should defend women's rights to do as they please with their body, the human being that has been conceived also has the same rights to liberty and freedom and to life, most of all, so you would use this figure to justify outlawing abortion without breaking your libertarian principles. Now, what parameters do you use to decide when a person starts being one? From the very moment it is conceived? After 6 weeks? Do you use scientifical ("men in coats") parameters? (which are not even universally held anyway).  So, what is it? How do you defend telling people they can't do something under libertarianism? All your (I guess) argument depends on the person that's been conceived. So is every being  person, even the very night after it was conceived?  I know three of our resident libertarians have some religious tendencies... I guess that will colour their answers. I'd love to see what a libertarian like JLocke who is also an atheist thinks about this issue.

I stand outside the libertarian mainstream on this as do not support abortion.

The standard argument against the fetus rests on the premise of trespass essentially. We have that, even if we give the fetus the rights of a full human, it is still trespassing on the mother's property. The mother then has full right to expel the intruder from the premises.

However, I believe applying the trespass principle is invalid here because of two key points:

1) The "person" receives a de facto invitation to enter the property by the act of sex.

2) While one has right to expel anyone from their property and for any reason the property holder chooses,  there is still a burden on the property owner it the nature of the outside world is hostile.

For example: Suppose I own a space station and invite you to come visit me. One suspended above the Earth we get into an argument and I want you off of my property. I am not justified in casting you out into the deep of space. I must provide safe transportation back to the planet for you. To say otherwise is to condone murder.

Now of course all of that depends on the status of the unborn child. I consider it to be a human being from very early stages of development. I think it is prudent to err on the side of caution in this regard.

I support abortion rights for women.  Even if one believes an early term fetus is a human life with full rights and protections, then there may be two separate and conflicting interests.  If the woman does not wish to finish the pregnancy, I'm far more concerned about her, her rights, and her existing life than I am the potential life.  To force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will is unimaginable to me.  I believe liberals are destroying the world, but I'm still with them on this one. 

But I also believe underage, single girls who do not wish an abortion should be counseled to give up the child for adoption to a loving, stable home, as a way to give the girl a chance at her education and give the baby a chance at a decent life than being stuck with two immature morons.  I'm not saying she should be forced to give up the child.  Just that she be counseled on trying to offer stable outcomes for all parties rather than poverty and the bleak future many of those kids have. 

Little something there to piss off everyone no doubt. 

People act as if the fetus is placing an obligation upon the woman, when really it is the other way around. The women places the obligation of child birth on herself  (excluding rape cases), and puts an even more severe obligation on the fetus. 

I am confused as to how a Libertarian could be against abortion, given that if the fetus is not aborted it will generally speaking require massive government resources to keep it alive for who knows how many years. 

jammun wrote: I am confused as to how a Libertarian could be against abortion, given that if the fetus is not aborted it will generally speaking require massive government resources to keep it alive for who knows how many years.

There's so many things wrong then I don't know where to start.

jammun wrote: I am confused as to how a Libertarian could be against abortion, given that if the fetus is not aborted it will generally speaking require massive government resources to keep it alive for who knows how many years.

Because they're Libertarians, not anarchists.