From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Psephological journals
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 15:01:23 PST

In <1993Jan4.214755.27215@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, J.R.Moore writes:

>In article <1hq3s1INNh5@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brand
>>
>>In a previous article, jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman) says:
>>
>>>(...) My thesis was
>>>that anti-abortion blocs shouldn't be written off entirely by
>>>libertarian campaigns, but rather subdivided and right-to-life
>>>"moderates" appealed to on common grounds.
>>>
>>As a pro-life libertarian, I think this makes a lot of sense.  I support the
>>LP and its candidates, despite the fact that the LP and most of its
>>candidates differ from me on that particular issue.  Pro-life people
>>need to be encouraged to take a wider view, and realize that ther eis more
>>than just a single issue at stake.
>>
>>By the same token (he said, cracking his knuckles), the "mainstream" of the
>>LP needs to stop treating pro-life libertarians as second class citizens.
>>How often have I heard people insisting that no "true" libertarian can
>>be pro-life, and that the pro-life position is fundamentally inconsistent
>>wiht the libertarian position?  Too often.  Obviously, I don't agree with
>>this prejudice, and would appreciate a little more respect for my views.
>>

>As I understand Libertarians believe that laws should be only to prevent
>force or fraud.  I don't see how pro-life would be inconsistent with
>this.  Abortion imposes force on a fetus.  I think a fetus is a person.
>I also thought the libertarian party demanded that people accept the
>consequences of their actions, so if a person does objectionable things
>that his employer doesn't like, the employer can fire him.  What about
>accepting responsibility for creating a life.  Really, I hate abortion
>arguments, but realizing that the libertarian party fails to recognize
>unborn persons as deserving of rights, and puts down those of us who do
>makes me wonder if libertarians want freedom with responsibility or anarchy.

In that light, is it really different than the "traditional" conservative and
liberal argument?  In both cases, it's a dispute as to whether a fetus is
indeed human life.  The "abortion is murder" crowd operates on the premise that
a fetus IS human life.  Presumably, the pro-choicers feel that a fetus isn't a
human life.  If there were "pro-choice Libertarians" who felt that a fetus WAS
a human being, then they are clearly being hypocritical and in favor of killing
human beings--that would make them "pro-murder" if they felt that way.

If there was agreement that a fetus was indeed human life in all respects with
all rights of the already born, then yes, libertarian philosophy would require
a pro-life platform (since the right to not be killed is presumably far greater
than any right to not be inconvenienced could ever be).  But since the official
LP platform is pro-choice, apparently the LP policy makers don't feel that
a fetus is worthy of equal consideration compared to the woman bearing it.

I'm certainly not qualified to make policy; I can only give an opinion.  I am
of the opinion that (a) abortion sucks; (b) those who seek abortion usually
have little regard for life; (c) my opinion shouldn't dictate public policy;
(d) people seeking abortions have no right to pick my pocket for something
I oppose; and (e) as long as I don't have to pay for it, I have no right to
prevent the abortion from occurring.  I would love a world in which no abor-
tions occurred.  Yet I recognize that I have no right to force others to comply
with *my* personal ideals.

Your point about Libertarianism and responsibility is well-taken.  Yet it seems
to me that someone who obtains an abortion with private funds--not relying on
our tax dollars--is at least more responsible than one who expects the tax-
payers to bail them out.  Paying for the abortion themselves (or soliciting
funds from those willing to voluntarily assist) is at least taking *some*
responsibility for your actions (remembering that the father is responsible,
too).

>As far as appealing to me on common grounds and not writing me off completely,
>fuck you.  I'm not a number or a group.  The things that seem appealing
>about the common sense, simplistic, libertarian philosophy pale against
>the idiots that use one view of that philosophy as gospel to prove themselves
>right and others, well, wrong, but maybe they'll be dumb enough to vote
>for us anyway.

Don't assume that the "idiots" you speak of represent the feeling of most
Libertarians.  Unfortunately, just as in the other parties, it's the fringe
extremists who get the most notice and media exposure.  There can be a legiti-
mate case for pro-choice in the LP platform.  As I said before, the argument
is dependent on one and only one question:  is the fetus human life?  Since
society at large--including people of all types--can't agree, why should we
assume that all Libertarians will?  Do we assume that ALL Republicans feel the
same about everything?  Or ALL Democrats?  Why should we apply different
standards to all Libertarians?


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism