From the AP via Breitbart, Jan. 31:
Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts says he opposes federal funding for abortions, but thinks women should have the right to choose whether to have one.Editor's Note - The vast majority of libertarians, myself included, are pro-choice. All libertarians oppose government funding, and most support parental notification laws, and oppose late-term abortions. However, in fairness, pro-life libertarians, though a distinctly minority view, are valued and welcomed members of the libertarian coalition.
Brown says the abortion question is one that's best handled by a woman, her family and her doctor. He also says more effort needs to go into reducing the number of abortions in the U.S.
He says he's fiscally conservative but more moderate on social issues.
12 comments:
Although also a libertarian, I'm not pro-abortion as a moral matter. I just believe people should be allowed to make moral decisions personally in the very early stages of pregnancy. Even 12weeks is "not early stage" imho. Ever seen an ultrasound of a 12 week old baby in utero?
Both extremes on the this are wrong. I would always try to talk a woman out of an abortion after about 40 days of gestation but never attempt to coerce her either publically or politically.
I'd like to recommend Libertarians for Life. Interesting logical discourse.
http://www.l4l.org
Carlton, please do recommend Pro-Life Libertarians. (Well, of course you already have.)
Again, and I say this as a solid Pro-Choicer: Pro-Life Libertarians are warmly welcomed within the libertarian movement, and most assuredly welcomed here at Libertarian Republican. You all do bring valid points to the discussion and debate.
(Though, I'll never agree with you all that abortion should be outlawed for the first trimester.)
I think it would be safe to say, the common ground for pro-life and pro-choice libertarians to unite on, would be for leaving abortion up to the states to make their own decisions.
Eric,
I'm with you on approach. This is an important debate to have, but first let's tear-down the statist machine and re-build the Republicans into a viable choice to run against the 'progressive' mob. "Pro-choice" you might say...
"I think it would be safe to say, the common ground for pro-life and pro-choice libertarians to unite on, would be for leaving abortion up to the states to make their own decisions."
I agree with that. And contrary to Dondero's assertion, I don't think that most libertarians are pro-choice (depending on how you define the term). The Republican Liberty Caucus is probably the most pro-life of the libertarian camps out there. Unless you think abortion should be outlawed in every instance (including rape and incest). Then I guess our group would have more pro-choicers in it.
In the face of Roe, no opinion on the killing of unborn children matters a wit. It's open season on the unborn and no politician can change it. That's why the whole issue is such a joke.
These assclown pro-abortion extremists who jump up and down at the mere suggestion of any limit at all on the killing are simply attempting to legitimize something heinous.
It's barbarism clothed in the rubric of freedom.
The true libertarian position would be for states to decide, since the US constitution does not mention abortion. The Supreme court never should have heard Roe v. Wade.
Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life" bill would prevent the Supreme Court from hearing these types of cases, therefore allowing individual states to pass their own laws regarding abortion. This would allow sovereign states to make abortion illegal if they so choose. If a woman wants to have an abortion, she is free to go to a state that allows it.
Sounds perfectly libertarian to me. But what is not libertarian is a Supreme Court that hears cases like Roe v. Wade
Eric,
The phrase "perfectly libertarian" is not consistent with making me feel welcomed or valued, when used to describe a politician who disregards the inalienable right to life of a human being prior to birth.
The main limit of Libertarian Freedom is to 'not hurt somebody else'.
Scientifically, how is your body different than every other body?
DNA.
Every human fetus has different DNA than its mother -- it is somebody else. From the moment of conception.
The execution of an innocent human fetal life, for the convenience of the mother, is never Libertarian.
While the moral culture slowly catches up to science (again), it would be good to actively support common-ground reductions in abortion:
a) no federal funding,
b) states-rights repeal of Roe, to allow different states to have different laws (which actually works in the EU, today),
c) cultural and intellectual support for women to give up their children for adoption.
d) all reasonable restrictions: on late term abortions, child notification laws, etc.
It's far easier to find women who admit to being prostitutes than to admit to having given up their child for adoption because of their bad situation. This is the anti-adoption climate that pro-life folk, especially, need to change. But conservatives, almost by definition, are bad at changing culture.
Finally, in proposing to make abortion illegal, a very very low punishment should be part of it: like $1 (symbolic). The point is not to overburden the unhappily pregnant woman, but to make it clear that she is killing a human fetus, which has god-given dignity.
Yes, it shouldn't be the law which ends abortion, but the culture.
"The true libertarian position would be for states to decide, since the US constitution does not mention abortion. The Supreme court never should have heard Roe v. Wade."
Damn right. The morality of it is none of the Federal Government's business, yet they declared this holocaust against the unborn an inalienable right of those doing the killing.
It's shameful. Evil isn't a big enough word for what it is.
Meanwhile, Roe is law. It's still open season on America's developing children.
"It's far easier to find women who admit to being prostitutes than to admit to having given up their child for adoption because of their bad situation. This is the anti-adoption climate that pro-life folk, especially, need to change. But conservatives, almost by definition, are bad at changing culture."
That might be the dumbest fucking paragraph I've ever read on this site.
Women who sell their cunts on street corners "find it easier" to "admit" they sell their cunts for a living because it's how they make a living. It's a shameless profession full of shameless people. To compare that to a woman's remorse over giving away her (usually firstborn) child is truly grotesque.
Why make such a perverted argument except for the sake of taking a crap on whoever it is you consider a "conservative"?
Especially?
Post a Comment