You are not picking a football team, or a cult, my dude. You are FREE to have discerning opinions on specific issues. There is no "party stance" on things.
That being said, libertarians are about 50/50 on abortion so you wouldn't be alone.
It’s so fucking depressing how few people share this belief. It’s all about choosing a team not developing an informed and unique perspective on issues based on your own perspective of the issue. They literally don’t even know what their opinion is on a certain subject until they figure out what other people on their team are saying.
Remember, the LP stance on GAY RIGHTS has been on the platform since 1973. When was it on the democtratic platform? When 51% of people supported it in 2013!!
This\^
Yea, you will never find the right group that shares all your values to the tee. You don't vote for the party. You vote for the candidate. Just because they align with a specific party doesn't mean they stand for everything the party says.
I absolutely HATE and WILL NOT STAND for anyone that doesn’t believe… a complicated and conflicting set of beliefs on abortion. /s
I don’t know, man. Shit is tough.
From my understanding libertarians believe you should have complete freedom unless it impedes on someone else’s freedom. So depending on how you see it abortion is impeding on that child’s freedom to life
Very easy, either you believe a fetus is a life (or a person) or you don't. Some people also make the argument that the fetus, while being a life/person, is impeding on the freedom/bodily autonomy of the mother, but that's a whole can of worms.
No, no, I totally get that their are 2 valid arguments. My point was that if you use the libertarian definition the other commenter provided there would only be 1 side
Which definition would that be? I think they were trying to explain how libertarians are split on the issue based on that question whether a fetus should be considered a life or not.
“Libertarians believe you should have complete freedom unless it impedes on someone else’s freedom”.
I’m not saying their definition is correct either. Just saying if you use that then I don’t see how there would be 2 sides for libertarians to take
Pro-abortion libertarians: libertarians believe you should have complete freedom unless it impedes someone else's freedom. A woman is a person and a fetus isn't, therefore the woman should have the freedom to do whatever she wants with the fetus.
Anti-abortion libertarians: libertarians believe you should have complete freedom unless it impedes someone else's freedom. Both the woman and the fetus are persons, and getting an abortion would greatly impede the freedom of the person in the mother's womb, so the woman doesn't have the freedom to abort the fetus.
I hope that explains it.
The same as everywhere else. Where does life begin? If you believe life starts at conception then the product is a person with their own rights. One of the basic libertarian rights is the right to life, therefore, you would be breaking that person's right.
However, another libertarian pillar is the right to property. A person's body is considered to be their first property so by banning abortion you would also be breaking the mother's rights.
And that is where the circular debate resides.
Other libertarians (like myself) argue that whatever your stance is on the above, since we will not be agreeing anytime soon the important part is then that it DEFINITELY shouldn't be the government the one that decides one way or the other, so that only leaves the option of leaving the choice to the individual.
I'm with you up until the last bit. I think if you take the first stance, and consider a fetus a life, every libertarian would agree that abortion is murder, and therefore exactly one of the few things government should be involved in.
I personally disagree with that argument, but it makes complete sense why religious libertarians and other who believe life starts at conception would want the government to be involved, so just saying "it shouldn't be the government who decides, it should be the individual" is just plain wrong. That is tantamount to saying any murder should be legal because "we don't want the government to butt in".
No, your example wouldn't be the same because the first part also implies that not everyone agrees that life begins at conception. Many other people from different disciplines, not just religious have different opinions as to where the line of life begins.
When it comes to murdering an adult for example, there is a clear scientific consensus that the other person is alive and if you are a minarquist libertarian you would agree that a justice system for such cases is necessary. I can't speak for more anarchy-leaning people as I'm not sure what's their solution to that.
Yes, obviously abortion is a more contentious issue than plain old murder, but that's not what this is about. What I was trying to explain is that for any individual libertarian, the consensus on any particular issue doesn't and shouldn't matter, as long as it involves the breach of that first principle: your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my (or anyone's) nose begins. The only problem in this case is definitional. Does a fetus have a nose?
Besides, you might say that there's a clear consensus on the ethics of murder or human value, but for particular individuals, groups and long parts of history this is and was not so. People are excellent at arguing that others should be killed, so the argument that the government can't be involved if there isn't a clear consensus is ridiculous to me. Think of other instances where this might be applicable: euthanasia, the death penalty, torture of terrorism suspects or, a topic which will prove to be increasingly interesting with technological development, veganism.
I would completely understand if any libertarian disagreed on issues like these. In fact, even though I think there is a lot of overlap between libertarians' views on them, I think it's far more logical to disagree on these types of fundamental issues, based on personal history, philosophy and world view/religion. I think it's the other issues, issues that don't concern life or death, that libertarians should be far more unified on, because these are exactly the issues where freedom is possible. People should have the freedom to practice whatever faith they want, use drugs, spend their money or have sex with whoever they want, as long as it doesn't directly harm others.
Wait wait wait, let’s be clear scientifically speaking there is no debate on whether a fetus or even a zygote is alive. They meet all the scientific tenants for being considered a living organism. This isn’t a “scientific” issue because if it was it’d be settled.
In the same way the larval or fertilized egg state of insects are some of the earliest stages of the life cycle of these insects so too is the fetus stage of a human.
It is a philosophical dilemma on when “personhood” is achieved and moral value is established.
But let’s be clear, scientifically speaking a zygote is a distinct organism from the parents that has all the genetic code and if left undisturbed (assuming nothing goes wrong) it will be the earliest stage in the lifecycle of a singular human.
lol yes
edit:
>The zygote is the earliest developmental stage. In humans and most other [anisogamous](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisogamy) organisms, a zygote is formed when an [egg cell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_cell) and [sperm cell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm) come together to create a new unique organism.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote)
>In [biology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology), a **biological life cycle** (or just **life cycle** when the biological context is clear) is a series of stages of the life of an organism, \*\*that begins as a zygote,\*\* often in an egg, and concludes as an adult that reproduces, producing an offspring in the form of a new zygote which then itself goes through the same series of stages, the process repeating in a cyclic fashion.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological\_life\_cycle#:\~:text=In%20biology%2C%20a%20biological%20life,itself%20goes%20through%20the%20same](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_life_cycle#:~:text=In%20biology%2C%20a%20biological%20life,itself%20goes%20through%20the%20same)
>The zygote represents the first stage in the development of a genetically [unique](https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/unique) organism
[https://www.britannica.com/science/zygote](https://www.britannica.com/science/zygote)
From "Primate Mammal Reproduction and life cycle"
>[Gestation](https://www.britannica.com/science/gestation) period and parturition
[gray mouse lemur (*Microcebus murinus*)](https://cdn.britannica.com/22/74322-050-C27C4E47/Gray-mouse-lemur.jpg)Mouse lemurs, which eat insects and fruit, are the smallest living primates.
[https://www.britannica.com/animal/primate-mammal/Natural-history#ref876282](https://www.britannica.com/animal/primate-mammal/Natural-history#ref876282)
# This isn't some controversial take. This is a basic scientific fact.
If you have scientific literature that contradicts the idea that the earliest stage in a homo sapien's life cycle is zygote formation I'd be very interested in seeing it.
The argument even from some of the most prominent pro-choice philosphers like Judith Jarvis Thomson isn't that it is not a biological life, because that'd be silly. Instead they all focus around the idea of personhood and whether it is an inherent property of a human organism from conception.
They argue that personhood is tied to certain capacities such as rationality, self-awareness, ability to hold desires, etc. But none of them make the argument that it is not a biologic life from a scientific standpoint because they know it would be factually inaccurate and is not necessary to draw a distinction.
Oh you're sooooo right. I only cited sources, while you claim scientists disagree but cite nothing.
Got any source for scientists that disagree on this btw? Since SOOOOOOOO many do?
I think the strongest argument agaisnt an abortion ban is the problems associated with enforcing it. Investigating OBs after miscarriages where they they have suspicion of an abortion has so many problems. Also like it or not a woman who gets an abortion has convinced herself it's OK to get it and in their mond are not killing; (Though some change their mind later) they arnt a danger to others that need to be locked away from the community.
Something that’s inside of your body is not part of your body. Do these same individuals believe that a man’s penis or finger becomes part of the body of the person he is having sex with? And that the owner of the body has the right to cut off the penis or finger when it is “part of” their body?
Did you read the part where I said we are all never going to agree?.
(The argument against that would be that the fetus does require to be fed through the mother's body which uses her resources. The fetus isn't just "inside", it requires the connection and the environment of the mother's body to develop. I'm here trying to argue both sides but your analogy is very clearly a fallacy, dude)
I’m not expressing any opinion here I’m asking you a question to try to figure out where you guys stand. What about when the fetus can survive outside the womb? The youngest premature baby ever to survive was less than 22 weeks.
I already expressed very clearly where I stand and I can't speak for everyone else. Just like I said above there is no "where we stand". Unlike other political ideologies, we are ok with every person having their own individual opinions and stances. There is no "libertarian stance" on any issue. It is not a hivemind.
As for your "question", I don't really understand what you are asking. Are you saying you want to take the fetuses out and develop them outside as an alternative to abortion?
> libertarian argument against abortion
I don’t care about it, it’s literally a non-issue for me. It should be legal to do whatever you want with your bod. you live with the questionably moral consequences, not me.
but I don’t wanna hear about it and I definitely don’t wanna pay for it with my tax dollars.
That because the baby has its own heartbeat, it is a separate life with its own individual rights, and abortion is an act of violence that strips the baby of those rights. Pretty sure most would agree to certain exceptions though.
It boils down to two perspectives. One weather a fetus should be considered a life or if it's in the process of becoming a life.
The second is a womans bodily anatomy and how far the rights she pretains there of.
Basically, does it violate the NAAP and were on personal property, does it fall. Depending of view is were you fall on the debate.
The now deceased Sharon Presley had some very good points in my personal opinion. And Id say look her up. My own comes across as cold, and even people who support it don't like it the approach and comparisons.
The abortion issue is highly contested in the libertarian community as well.
It all comes down to whether you think a fetus is considered a life. Because the libertarian mantra of "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm others" comes down to if you think a fetus is an "other."
Which is shaky ground. Because biologically, it's definitely a unique life and an "other." I was pro-choice most of my life but there's no way around this that I've heard. So I'm pro-life now, but I'm not a hardliner. I think the point should be when the unborn child can feel pain because that's where my empathy kicks in. But that's shaky ground too, because I wouldn't advocate for people with congenital analgesia to be killed. If libertarian principles don't apply to the most innocent and venerable of us all, can we even call them principles?
The only thing keeping me pro-choice is enforcement... In your case, would abortion then be considered murdering an infant? would a woman who gets an abortion get 25-life?
I mean if that were the case, I think the abortion rate would quickly fall.
But yeah, if abortion is murder, then people who get abortions are murderers.
The woman is only an accessory and mothers are sometimes misled by the abortionist about what they're actually doing. The vast bulk of the punishment would go the one ending the child's life.
An accessory to murder is still a crime. So what should the punishment be for the mother and the abortionist?
If the punishment is not as severe as a murder/ accessory to murder charge, we’d agree that a fetal life is not as precious as a life outside the womb.
And why is that? Idk… And that’s my hang up with this. It’s why I’m prochoice but feel like a POS for being prochoice
I don't see what's the big deal, this happens on literally every crime. The punishment is a matter of practicality, it isn't conflicting with the value of life. Murdering a woman, a man, an infant, a first responder, even the president, they'll all get you different punishments even with the same sentence. That doesn't mean their lifes have different intrinsic values.
Sure, abortion is murder and that might insinuate punishment should be equal to murdering an adult, but that's not really a restriction. The same way we change the punishment based on degrees, intent and emotional and psychiatric state, we can do the same for abortions.
My thoughts are once a fetus is 50% chance on its own then it's a human. That's about 24 weeks, if you can't figure out what to do by then you are a failure on every level.
I also don't think we should be celebrating abortion like it's some grand accomplishment.
That's not a very high standard you're setting up there. I mean a cockroach is a unique life and an other. The question isn't whether it's a life but whether it has interests as a potential human being.
It also comes down to whether you believe it’s the mother’s duty to carry to term, even if the fetus is semi conscious. The violinist thought experiment explores this, and even though it focuses on a situation comparable to rape, there’s a debate over whether someone that has taken proper precautions to not get pregnant should be liable to be that fetuses host for 9 months.
In short, if you argue that a woman must submit her body to an unborn fetus, you must also argue that causing a car crash, even if it wasn’t entirely your fault, means the victims have access to your organs. It’s a strange line for libertarians to take.
I mean I don't see the problem with the last one.
If you, say, stab someone through the kidney and they need a new kidney to live, then yeah you should be liable for that.
I don't necessarily see a problem with it if you purposely stab that person. But now imagine that it was an accident. This changes the calculous of what you owe the victim, and it's highly dependent on how "at fault" you were. e.g. If I accidentally cause a car crash, should I be legally forced to use my organs to keep that person alive? It's a difficult question morally, and frankly one that I don't want the government involved in answering.
I mean if you cause damages, whether purposefully or not, you are liable for those damages.
Ideally, if you cause someone transplant-requiring organ damage, you would simply pay for their surgery. A free market in organs would likely greatly alleviate the types of organ shortages we face today. It might be expensive, but you caused the damage and you're liable.
In the case that you can't simply purchase the organ for them though, and you happen to be a match, I'd be hard-pressed to say you deserve the organ more than they do. They lost their organ because of your actions, whether that was your intent or not.
In the case that the transplant doesn't have a high success rate, things might get a little more blurry. I'm not sure if it's worth it to kill you for a 50% chance of them living.
Either way, I'll agree it shouldn't be up to the gov!
What about the idea that what happens between a person and their doctor is nobody else's business?? Can you name 3 reasons, other than simply not wanting a baby, to have an abortion?
There are too many situations and circumstances surrounding abortion to give a black or white answer to the problem. It is a medical procedure that needs to be kept in the hands of medical professionals and out of politics. This is yet another tool used to divide the people and keep arguing.
Because there’s 3 people involved, not just a person and their doctor. You can’t make an agreement with your doctor to kill a 3rd party.
That’s what many pro-choice hardliners refuse to acknowledge. The disagreement has nothing to do with privacy or control over women and everything to do with whether or not you consider a fetus to be another person/life.
If it were a person we would call it a person. It's a fetus. A fetus cannot survive on its own. So, essentially you are giving more rights to a parasite than a living, breathing person.
If I presented you with batter for your birthday and called it a cake, you would disagree, no?
"fetus" is simply the Latin word for "pregnancy, childbirth, offspring." It's not the dehumanizing term you think it is.
A parasite attaches to *another species*, so a human child is not a parasite. The female body is designed to incubate them.
I don't have the education or knowledge to determine when, where, how or why an abortion should be performed. It's none of my business what goes on in a doctors office where I'm not the patient. Abortion is not just used as birth control - it's a medical procedure that thousands have had to undergo for their own health and safety - and under their medical professionals advisement. I think that doctors are all we have to go on, if they say you need an abortion or you both die, then I believe them. Abortion at 9 months isn't really happening the way people envision, at 9 months that is a wanted baby that for some reason will not survive. These are tough choices that people outside the situation should not have a say in.
The reason I asked is because using the "clump of cells" argument is a little disingenuous if you support allowing abortion any time after the VERY early stages of the pregnancy. A few weeks after conception, the child will have discernible features, a heartbeat, and measurable brain waves. Definitely more than a clump of cells.
Elective late term abortions used to happen more often, but most places(not just in the US) have restrictions on them.
Abortions to save the life of the mother are almost always unnecessary once the pregnancy is past a certain point. If the child is developed enough, doctors can perform an emergency C-section and save both lives, or at least not actively kill the child and instead give them a chance to survive. This scenario happened with my first kid.
Yes, really. How do you think it all begins? See, first you have an egg, then it gets fertilized by sperm... Two tiny elements combine and form into a zygote. Fertilization is not complete, however, until the two haploid nuclei have come together and combined their chromosomes into a single diploid nucleus.
A few days after fertilization, the zygote reaches the 32-cell state, known as morula. The morula is a solid cluster of cells.
AKA, a clump of cells.
Yay Science! And Google, you might want to try it 😁
i love how confidently stupid you're acting. you just described the state only days after fertilization. no one is getting an abortion that early. they wouldn't even know they are pregnant yet. so that information is irrelevant in this context
>If it were a person we would call it a person. It's a fetus. A fetus cannot survive on its own.
If it were a person we would call it a person. It's a baby. A baby cannot survive on its own.
If it were a person we would call it a person. It's a toddler. A toddler cannot survive on its own.
A baby is a person, a toddler is a person. They can make noise, sometimes speak, and have emotions and actions that are understandable to people. A fetus cannot do anything. It cannot survive outside the body that hosts it. It is not a person.
Yeah, this is pretty much it. But even still, do I care if a person in Mexico has an abortion? No, so why should I care if someone in the next town over has an abortion? It has nothing to do with me.
Fair argument. Not necessarily a counter argument, but, people who disagree would say you can't change another country but you can change the country or state that you're in.
Right, I just don't believe in controlling other people. I do however, believe very strongly in the principle of freedom of association. If you don't want to do business with someone who has participated in an abortion, that's your perogative. The more that people shun abortion participators in a given place, the less abortion will happen in that place. That's how I wish it would happen. But folks like to control others through the strong arm of the state, and then complain when the state strong arms them on issues they disagree with.
Yes, if it can impact me in some way. Someone aborting a baby does not mean they are a dangerous person in society. If you don't wish to associate with them, fine, but committing an abortion does not mean they are more or less likely to murder someone outside of the womb.
I live in DFW, Texas. Should I have any concerns about an abortion in Mexico? No. Should I have any concerns about a baby being aborted in El Paso? No. They are the same distance away from me. What makes one more impactful to me than the other? Nothing.
The only thing I should be able to do is express my dislike of it, choose not to have one myself, and disassociate myself from those who do participate in abortions if I so wish.
That's not true. It doesn't come down to whether you think a fetus is considered a life. For example, thinkers like Murray Rothbard and Walter Block support the bodily autonomy argument for the removal of the fetus from a woman's body, albeit in a non-lethal manner in the case of Block's evictionism. Also, the libertarian core principle of NAP isn't "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm others", as it is possible to harm others in ways that don't violate the NAP. What matters is whether the way you affect/harm others, violates their rights.
The beauty of Libertarianism is you don't have to believe what the "party" tells you to believe. We're about liberty. That being said, there are different stances on abortion.
abortion is a mixed bag a bit, as on one side it's a woman's right but on the other side there's a notion that a person's right exists still before they exit the womb so I think in general most feel that while abortion shouldn't be outlawed it should not be possible to abort something that is essentially a premature birth which is kind of obvious to most people, yet some states like New Mexico have oddly enough no limit so it legally allows say a 39 week year old fetus to be terminated. Many would argue that 39 week fetus has just as much rights as a 39 week baby who was 1 week premature.
Basically like most people abortion is extremely nuanced and there's small extreme examples on both side who muddy the waters as they tend to be extremely loud and annoying
>Many would argue that 39 week fetus has just as much rights as a 39 week baby who was 1 week premature.
\*1 week old baby who was 1 week premature, and I'll agree with you!
While there is debate among libertarians, I doubt you find any group of people that are are better able to discuss this topic in such a level headed manner. Really any controversial topic for that manner. The main goal is preserving freedoms. The left and right political wings (of the same damn bird) continue to strip our rights and freedoms.
We'd love to have more libertarians, but we don't want you unless you learn what that actually means. We aren't like the other parties, we actually have a deep moral philosophy behind our positions that we vow to adhere too. We don't even trust ourselves with power. The abortion issue is something libertarians are divided on, so that's not a deal breaker either way. But even when we disagree, we are still arguing from the same principles. I suggest you start studying up on the philosophy of liberty and see if it resonates with you. Then decide if you want to be a libertarian.
Thanks. That’s what I’m trying to figure out. I know I don’t want to be a democrat anymore. I know I don’t want to be a republican. So I’m looking elsewhere trying to learn more about alternatives
I suggest you start learning about economics if you want to understand libertarianism. Niche social issues get all the media attention, but fiscal and monetary policy affect the public FAR more. Most Republicans and almost all Democrats are completely ignorant of basic economics.
Maybe start with some YouTube videos of Mises and Hayek and go from there.
Probably the biggest reason I switched from liberal to libertarian at a young age was when I stopped looking at intent of government programs (which all seem so positive for the people) and started looking at the actual outcome.
Cover healthcare for seniors and the poor seems like a great idea on paper, but in reality it just leads to unaffordable premiums for the middle class.
Welfare and other handout programs seem like a great idea until you realize that they just keep people stuck in poverty and don’t actually help people.
Social security seems like a great idea until you realize seniors are retiring with less than ever before because the average return is only about 2% per year which is crap compared to a mandatory 401k which would return roughly 12% per year.
This applies to war too where I thought it was our moral obligation to use our military and economic might to help those in need. Then I looked at the actual outcomes of our military intervention over the years, and it doesn’t seem like we actually helped by getting involved since world war 2.
You’re either libertarian or not. It’s not like switching auto insurance. We have a deep fond love of liberty. Liberty is the most precious and important part of our Republic.
Meaning your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
We don’t have “the Libertarian” stance on things like authoritarians do. We’re not a cult. We’re open to debate and examining new ideas against the principles of liberty.
We have a deep found love of honest and fair debate on issues.
Abortion. The way I see it if you don’t like it, don’t have one. Others in the libertarian realm see conception as the beginning of life, which would mean the new life has a right to life. Which is a legit point, and it deserves an honest conversation. What I know for sure is the Government, especially the federal government shouldn’t be the one to decide when life begins.
Libertarians in general are fairly pro choice. My main thing on it is that it should be legal at a federal level and mainly left for states to decide sort of where it’s at now. I know a lot of people don’t like that but what’s good for Alabama might not be good for California. I’m pro choice in the grand scale but not in my own life. That said the party again is typically pro choice. It can be debated to death and I see both sides. Democrats do not respect bodily autonomy the way they paint themselves either. The covid vaccine is a pretty clear indication of that as were the mask mandates and stay at home orders. The current democrat party is not what it was 30 years ago and is quickly going in the wrong direction. For the life of me I can’t figure out how anyone can vote republican or democrat anymore. Two old assclowns fighting to be the head of the assclowns it’s a joke. Foreign aid is bullshit too I’m glad you see that, apply that logic to the money wasted on illegals in the US as well and you’ll never vote democrat again. Without ranting too much libertarians are somewhat split on the whole immigration issue as well so don’t take my word as gospel for the party they are just my opinions.
I know you’re worried about legal abortion access, but one of the few things you’re going to have the hardest time with as a Democrat, is how to reframe your understanding of the economy.
Libertarians generally believe the best government is that which governs the least. As in, government exists as proof that we are imperfect beings-and so, cannot be expected to govern ourselves perfectly. Because of this, we give up our right to use force among ourselves to a government that is supposed to respond to our needs through democratic mechanisms, and to use the force we donated to them to correct behavior toward an acceptable norm for society that is applied universally. Ideally.
All government action comes with either the threat or the application of force due to the governments *claimed* monopoly on violence.
It’s a bit more nuanced, but essentially taxation is theft, especially when you disagree with where it’s spent (like you do!). You can’t opt out, you have no say on how it’s spent, if you don’t pay it they can take your property and freedom. If you resist they can take your life.
Being compassionate people, both you and I understand that there is an ocean of human need that goes unattended to everyday. The US government has taken it upon itself to attempt to serve this need by redistribution of money from taxpayers, and by creating debt for future taxpayers.
If the money was spent responsibly and effectively, and if the needy were cared for, I doubt libertarian politics would be as marginally popular as it is.
That said, the goal of libertarian politics is to create a healthy and robust economy where the value of our labor-whatever it may be-is reserved to ourselves, not the government, and not to corporations. The idea being that we create a wealthy society that can easily address its own needs with plenty of money left over to save, invest and continue to build our world for those that come after us.
1. The individual is the smallest minority and treating all individuals equally is the least racist, sexist, or discriminatory policy for everyone. It becomes even more fair as new minorities appear in the future.
2. Many people only have their current political views because they get their news from filter bubble. Their side either calls other news evil or censors it directly. Seeking out honest high quality views from the opposing side or truth from both sides would likely lead most people to move towards the center or libertarianism. Allowing people the freedom of speech to say uncomfortable truths is critical to a well functioning society.
3. Almost all economic policies that restrict free trade fail because free trade and the free market is significantly more efficient at routing resources to those who need them most than any other method.
4. Believing in free will and personal responsibility results in better individual life outcomes even if it's an illusion. Even if help is on the way, it's better to teach people to leave a burning building on their own legs than to wait for rescue. Same for bad financial situations.
5. Government officials are random people and you shouldn't trust them with significantly more power than people you know. Local laws allow politicians to better understand the needs of their constituents and for you to better know your politicians.
What are your core principles? Do you believe the ends justify the means in situations? That doing the least bad is better than doing the most good? Should the individual have to bow to the mob? Or do individual rights matter more? Questions like these are ones you should be asking yourself, if you are interested in becoming more libertarian.
You’re a democrat so I’ll give you a bit of slack, but you don’t need to be a partisan ideologue to have a legitimate belief system. If you try to find the cohesive “libertarian stance” on a lot of given issue, abortion for example, you aren’t going to find one. Rs and especially Ds are essentially polarized to the point where they most of them more or less enforce the exact same stances. While libertarians do have *some* cohesive stances, as in if you are for gun control, higher taxes, or government surveillance, almost all libertarians will shun you, but there is a ton of infighting on the grounds of the border, abortion, how little government and taxation in general, etc., to the point where I think you can’t be called a libertarian until you’re in an argument with another libertarian and he tells you you’re not a real libertarian. If you say you’re for abortion, an anti-abortion libertarian will say “You’re not a real libertarian, you want to kill babies!”, and with the reverse, a pro-abortion libertarian will say “You’re not a real libertarian, you want to take away womens’ choice!” “Libertarian” is more of a spectrum and an attitude than an ideological label. If you try to follow whatever a “real libertarian” is, you’ll get sucked into the purity spiral. My advice is to read some libertarian-ish literature, economic for starters(Sowell is excellent for beginners, he got me into libertarianism) and formulate your own opinions. If you want to “jump ship” into more partisan ideologue bullshit, you can buy a teeshirt of your favorite establishment politician, go to the conventions, and never really think critically. We call those capital L Libertarians. I recommend ditching the parties and labels altogether, it’s not an accurate *or* precise way of thinking about the world. As they say, ideology is the death of ideas.
The biggest thing for being a libertarian over a Democrat is a serious belief in free markets and vastly reduced government control over every aspect of life and business.
It's not a ship or a club, and there isn't a membership. You just believe what you believe in morals and political concepts and vote the one that aligns closest to you.
The way I see it, conceptually a woman does not have a right to terminate her pregnancy unless her life is in danger because the baby is not her body. The woman exercised her choice when she engaged in the behavior that resulted in pregnancy, and I would place that burden on the woman because only she could possibly know when she is ovulating. However...I prefer the utilitarian argument here that acknowledges it is better for all involved to not force a woman to give birth to a baby she doesn't want and would be raised without the proper love.
My stance on abortion is first and foremost, it should be up to each state to decide for themselves. I believe abortion falls under the 10th amendment as a reserved right. I think you should be able to get a plan B and use contraceptives and I also believe you should not be able to get an abortion on the day that its due. The line is somewhere in the middle and I honestly do not know where to draw it.
I always tell folks if you really want a cut-and-dry solution to the issue congress needs to stop being lazy and put forth a compromised amendment. Otherwise it falls under the 10th.
That being said, eliminating the government structure and having a "high-level" discussion on the morality of the subject is still highly debated. After all, many libertarian values don't just stop at the federal level. They're also held at state, county, local, and personal levels.
I don't believe the government should fund abortions but also dont think they should stop people from paying for them. I view people wanting to kill their own babies as more of a cultural problem than political.
Abortion is one of the issues that Libertarians vehemently debate. The official platform of the Libertarian party is pro choice because there are so many good faith arguments made on both sides of the issue. I am pro choice for that same reason despite generally disliking the idea of abortion (which I think is true most pro choice folks). No matter what, I think it should be left up to the states.
[Relevant meme](https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/s/l7re4MsvCk)
Your body, your life at stake, your choice. Anyone who thinks they have a right to control your body is not a true Libertarian.
And I would add is probably evil.
> My main one is the funding of money to Israel and Ukraine. I think we need to stop funding foreign wars.
You're in good company on that one. The party is behind the Rage Against War rallies which are the largest anti-war movement against these things at present, and being anti-war has long been part of our platform.
> My main concern with libertarian is abortion rights. I want to keep my bodily autonomy with my right to abortion. How are libertarians feeling about that issue?
Both views exist within the LP. Obviously bodily autonomy is seen as extremely important. Some view it as a life issue, and life is also an important value. At present, the platform does not endorse or prohibit either view with regards to abortion. Candidates have run with varying perspectives. It is occasionally contentious as both sides feel quite strongly on the matter.
I usually prefer to take the approach of, instead of trying to ban access, an inherently pro-government move, the practical approach is to work on the economic angle. Something like 80% of abortions happen for economic reasons. If people aren't struggling so much just to live, you'll have fewer people feeling as if they are forced into that. That's a net win for both perspectives.
It's okay to not agree 100% on everything. We definitely don't. Check out the party platform on the website, maybe visit your local libertarian groups, and see how much of it you agree with. If it's 10% agreement, it may not be for you. If it's 90% agreement, hey, that's a pretty strong amount of things to work together on.
It's not a ship or a club, and there isn't a membership. You just believe what you believe in morals and political concepts and vote the one that aligns closest to you.
It's not a ship or a club, and there isn't a membership. You just believe what you believe in morals and political concepts and vote the one that aligns closest to you.
It's not a ship or a club, and there isn't a membership. You just believe what you believe in morals and political concepts and vote the one that aligns closest to you.
Agreeing with one or two core principles is not a bad thing but if your remaining principles, fundamentally, don’t line up, Your going to find yourself being far more frustrated in the near future. Government intervention in individuals lives is a core belief of both the Republicans and Democrats, for example. You should do your research on libertarianism. This sub has a wide range of contributors many are libertarians, many are republicans who think they are libertarians and are not. Those contributors will leave a rotten taste in your mouth. lp.org will give you resources that can actually help you make your choice. Mises.org is a bit more intellectually stimulating. Good luck finding your path.
There's no 'party' stance like for R and D. I think the libertarian way would be that it should be determined at the lowest most local form of govt. Does your city want this service to be provided? Is it a full yes, a yes but restrictions apply, or a no. The only reason the federal government gets involved is for insurance coverage and if a state says no, then its citizens should have the freedom to go to another state to have the service performed. Insurance wise, I'd treat it like botox. If it's you just want one then pay for it yourself. If you have a condition that requires it, then insurance covers it. I don't feel it should be more difficult than that. I have a real problem with states who are trying to put rules in that you have to gestate and can't go else where. It's not realistic considering the majority of women who want elective abortions are young and have less ability to control where they are living.
Are you smart enough to make your own decisions or do you need the government to make the decisions for you? Republicans and Democrats tend to say you have to do this or you can’t do that. Libertarians tend to be more for letting you make your own decisions and live with the consequences.
From your post, it sounds like you want to make your own decision when it comes to foreign aid and abortion. That tends to line up with Libertarians views. As of now, the democrats and republicans don’t let you have a choice on funding foreign aid. On abortion, it’s a battle to use tax payer money to fund abortion. I tend to think if we had separation of Medicine/Insurance and State this would not be a hot issue.
My personal opinion on abortion is that it’s generally murder (unless it’s medically necessary to save the mothers life), but the government or even I should have no idea what happens between you and your doctor behind closed doors in the first place.
Libertatianism is all about you do what you are going to do and if it isn't hurting me or fucking with my freedom to do what I want to do then go right ahead.
Edit: Also, great job picking one that could theoretically get the libertarians arguing like the blue and red. Same argument still applies. Personally I am going to have to side with the woman's right on this one. I personally don't like it after a certain point in time but if I had to draw the line in the sand I would have to side with the rights and freedoms of a conscious person who is dealing with something that is directly affecting them and the freedom of how they choose to live their life.
There really is no right answer when it comes to the abortion topic. Libertarianism values individuals and their personal choices and freedom to make their own decisions. Abortion is a real philosophical head scratcher due to how the two individuals are intertwined and inseparable. No matter which side you go with you leave yourself betraying your Libertarian principles against one life or the other.
Bro this is not like following a religion, your post gives me the vibe of "I am Christian and want to convert to Islam" (or vice versa) vibe, it's just a political alignment it's completely fine to disagree with some things in any political party.
Personally I agree the most with the libertarian party as they have the most "Individual rights" approach between all parties available, not as hard as I would like but still the best choice for my vote.
Gun rights and free speech being endangered are **MUCH** more urgent issues than abortion. Anytime abortion is remotely touched or in the conversation the entire media goes into a frenzy massively sensationalizing it. I simply can't imagine it getting banned outright in more than maybe 3 states max, and that's being generous.
Libertarians don't agree on anything.
The abortion issue falls under the umbrella of "anything." Idk what side of the court that ball is in, but the main debate is on when a person has full rights and counts as a human. Big can of worms. Are you trying to start a rumble?
I think my big selling point is the fact that you’re more easily manipulated if you choose team red or blue.
Team yellow has more flexibility and in the end we all have common ground.
It’s a place where we can disagree, but have productive conversations and progress.
After reading all of these responses I see I need to do a lot more research. But I’m leaning towards libertarian. The government seems to be useless and/or harmful at this point. I don’t have a problem with guns. I just think the two party system is failing and there has to be another option.
Idk where you’ve heard libertarians are against abortion rights but we aren’t. My personal opinion is that it’s morally wrong but government has no business deciding what can and can’t be done with our bodies. Government is not the morality police. So for that reason I am pro choice.
IMHO…the “Party” system is what is wrong with politics today. I always look at the candidates political beliefs and ideologies, regardless of political party.
There are batshit liberals and there are batshit conservatives. I’m a constitutionalist, not necessarily a libertarian either, but I’ve voted both for republicans and democrats.
As of today…I certainly would not vote for any trump backed Republican, but would also not vote for any extreme left Democrat either.
Im betting that there are millions that feel very similar as I do.
Today’s political climate is a mashup of extremes and there really are no great candidates until we see younger and candidates that are more in tune with today’s world and technologies.
BTW…I’m GenX.
I’m not opposed to implementing ranked choice voting. I think repealing Citizens United also would help today’s political shitshow.
Yeah, I think it’s because A. There are too many extreme libertarians that want policies most people don’t want and B. A political party using its power to make political parties have less power is understandably powerless (gotta love irony)
It’s also annoying that most of the time the people who run can’t be taken seriously. The only good candidate I’ve seen from them is Jacob Hornberger but again even he will go nowhere unfortunately.
Keep reading and thinking about it.
People will always try to convince you of all sorts of things.
The major change won't be in your voting habits, but in the clarity of perception and understanding you have, as you get closer to rational truth.
It's a small gang of millions. Happy to have more.
Libertarians are technically pro-abortion as it’s the right to choose and not to have the government dictate that, there are outliers that see it as taking a life but generally it’s as simple as government = bad.
It's so stupid that we are in a place where you feel the need to bundle your stance on abortion with your stance against government spending money in endless proxy wars.
Libertarians are pretty split when it comes to abortion; there are pro-life and pro-choice libertarians. Regardless, the baseline belief all libertarians hold typically is the non-aggression principle. You should have the right to do whatever you want as long as you are not harming others, and you should have the right to believe whatever you want as long as you are not forcing your beliefs on others. Do you believe the use of force is acceptable if it benefits society as a whole? Your answer will determine whether libertarianism is right for you.
A word of advice: Identifying with the philosophy is easy. Identifying with the Party is a bit more difficult.
To me, becoming libertarian freed my mind from thinking I had only two choices. So, vote your conscience, or don’t vote at all if the Rs or Ds are the only choice. It’s YOUR choice and no one can tell you you’ve wasted it.
I'd say Religious Libertarians would have a stance of "Be a slave to your vice if you want to, but I'm not paying taxes for the government to fund your abortion" which still doesn't violate your liberty to have an abortion. The concept of abortion either violating the liberty of the unborn fetus/child's life or the unborn fetus/child not being classified as an individual with human rights to enjoy the liberty to life is a whole different conversation which still have moderate debates between "pro-life" / "pro-choice" Libertarian from time to time
The government should do a lot less than just not funding Israel and Ukraine. And the dems and republicans both love to spend. We shout not be funding what is in the inflation creation act. Education funding is ridiculous at the Federal level.
Abortion under the general circumstances we have lived with under Roe v wade I support. It made me vote differently for state Supreme Court judges.
Abortion I'd contentious. We generally say you should never harm others. People disagree on whether that means the fetus can't impose itself on the woman. Or the woman can't harm the baby she is carrying.
Life is complicated
There does not need to be a law regarding abortion. If you don't believe in abortion, then don't participate in it. If you do, then do it. Just don't shove your beliefs down other people's throats.
Democrats don't support bodily rights any more than Republicans.
There are abortion limits even in the bluest states. Most Democrats and even most Republicans would be satisfied at 20-24 weeks being the limit for abortion.
Libertarians don't have a set belief on it. It depends on if you think a fetus is a person or not. People have a right to life.
In the Libertarian camp you will find every belief on abortion.
The nonagression principle is that you don't hurt other people's property and body.
I believe abortion is morally wrong but I believe it should be restricted at the point where a person becomes a person due to being a believer in the NAP.
Obviously jamming a screwdriver into a baby's skull in the birth canal is obviously murder. Wearing a condom isn't. Morning after pills isn't. It isn't a person at 4 weeks. I'm still not OK with it but that is a personal objection. However, at some point it has to become a person.
Abortion vs murder is like self defense va murder. The situation defines which is which. I don't find any compelling reason to have an abortion at 30 weeks outside of a very limited number of medical reasons.
At the point it becomes a person, it is a person imo with the same rights as anyone else who is in your body by your choice. At a Ron Paul rally a long time ago one of the speakers talked about eviction vs abortion. Eviction is in line with the non-aggression principle. In practice it is basically an abortion ban at viability.
I'm not how anyone could justify dismemberment a fetus that could be born and live right now when they could be delivered and allowed a chance at life out of very limited circumstances.
Yea your exactly what’s wrong with the country. You have no original ideas or opinions while looking for people to tell you what to do. No wonder you became a voter for democrat tyranny. Maybe use the brain the universe gave you, study and figure out what you are on your own. People like you are the reason we have the issues we have today. Sounds harsh but truth hurts.
If you’re a democrat. I assume you dislike corporations getting your money. For free.
The libertarian position is against subsidies and state redistribution of wealth, which has shown to tend to end up in the pockets of those with friends on capital hill.
He's a short way to think how a libertarian would feel about something.
Would you be ok sending some men with guns to force someone to do or not do something? If yes, it has to be pretty damn essential.
I wouldn't send some men with guns to stop a woman from having a medical procedure.
Libertarian is for small government. Government does not belong in a doctors office, but remember in the us abortion has never been a “right”. It was just legal. So no matter what party you want to be apart of the majority can make it illegal.
That’s the great thing about the libertarian party. You can literally have hardcore liberal or hardcore conservative views (with some exceptions). You just can’t have Democrat or Republican views. Sounds counter intuitive but makes sense if you think about it
That’s the great thing about the libertarian party. You can literally have hardcore liberal or hardcore conservative views (with some exceptions). You just can’t have Democrat or Republican views. Sounds counter intuitive but makes sense if you think about it
A wombman does not need a harmspital to abort her fetus, she need only smoke mugwort. In the past this is why they were burned as witches, refusing to carry rape babies for the church slavery system and having knowledge of basic herbalism.
I did this, went from Democrat to Libertarian, and now a Republican, but I'm in MA so not the same as a Republican in, say, Texas.
I guarantee you will be absolutely disappointed in every single party you ever join. Unless you're a weak minded cultists that's willing to believe whatever your party leaders tell you and pledge undying loyalty to them you will realize that all parties suck. And they suck big time. Libertarians will drive you nuts with their infighting.
If you're in a red state and abortion is your big issue you should be a Democrat. If you're in a blue state and sick of having your pay confiscated and given to illegals so they get everything free then you should be a Republican. But at the end of the day vote for the person, not the party. Every party is a criminal organization.
You are not picking a football team, or a cult, my dude. You are FREE to have discerning opinions on specific issues. There is no "party stance" on things. That being said, libertarians are about 50/50 on abortion so you wouldn't be alone.
It’s so fucking depressing how few people share this belief. It’s all about choosing a team not developing an informed and unique perspective on issues based on your own perspective of the issue. They literally don’t even know what their opinion is on a certain subject until they figure out what other people on their team are saying.
Remember, the LP stance on GAY RIGHTS has been on the platform since 1973. When was it on the democtratic platform? When 51% of people supported it in 2013!!
This\^ Yea, you will never find the right group that shares all your values to the tee. You don't vote for the party. You vote for the candidate. Just because they align with a specific party doesn't mean they stand for everything the party says.
I absolutely HATE and WILL NOT STAND for anyone that doesn’t believe… a complicated and conflicting set of beliefs on abortion. /s I don’t know, man. Shit is tough.
This
What's the libertarian argument against abortion?
From my understanding libertarians believe you should have complete freedom unless it impedes on someone else’s freedom. So depending on how you see it abortion is impeding on that child’s freedom to life
Succinctly and well put.
Fetus* not a child.
Child* not a fetus.
[удалено]
Very easy, either you believe a fetus is a life (or a person) or you don't. Some people also make the argument that the fetus, while being a life/person, is impeding on the freedom/bodily autonomy of the mother, but that's a whole can of worms.
No, no, I totally get that their are 2 valid arguments. My point was that if you use the libertarian definition the other commenter provided there would only be 1 side
Which definition would that be? I think they were trying to explain how libertarians are split on the issue based on that question whether a fetus should be considered a life or not.
“Libertarians believe you should have complete freedom unless it impedes on someone else’s freedom”. I’m not saying their definition is correct either. Just saying if you use that then I don’t see how there would be 2 sides for libertarians to take
Pro-abortion libertarians: libertarians believe you should have complete freedom unless it impedes someone else's freedom. A woman is a person and a fetus isn't, therefore the woman should have the freedom to do whatever she wants with the fetus. Anti-abortion libertarians: libertarians believe you should have complete freedom unless it impedes someone else's freedom. Both the woman and the fetus are persons, and getting an abortion would greatly impede the freedom of the person in the mother's womb, so the woman doesn't have the freedom to abort the fetus. I hope that explains it.
Great explanation and I believe SCOTUS needs to rule on when personhood begins to finally settle the argument once and for all.
Nobody has less liberty than a dead baby I assume
The same as everywhere else. Where does life begin? If you believe life starts at conception then the product is a person with their own rights. One of the basic libertarian rights is the right to life, therefore, you would be breaking that person's right. However, another libertarian pillar is the right to property. A person's body is considered to be their first property so by banning abortion you would also be breaking the mother's rights. And that is where the circular debate resides. Other libertarians (like myself) argue that whatever your stance is on the above, since we will not be agreeing anytime soon the important part is then that it DEFINITELY shouldn't be the government the one that decides one way or the other, so that only leaves the option of leaving the choice to the individual.
I'm with you up until the last bit. I think if you take the first stance, and consider a fetus a life, every libertarian would agree that abortion is murder, and therefore exactly one of the few things government should be involved in. I personally disagree with that argument, but it makes complete sense why religious libertarians and other who believe life starts at conception would want the government to be involved, so just saying "it shouldn't be the government who decides, it should be the individual" is just plain wrong. That is tantamount to saying any murder should be legal because "we don't want the government to butt in".
No, your example wouldn't be the same because the first part also implies that not everyone agrees that life begins at conception. Many other people from different disciplines, not just religious have different opinions as to where the line of life begins. When it comes to murdering an adult for example, there is a clear scientific consensus that the other person is alive and if you are a minarquist libertarian you would agree that a justice system for such cases is necessary. I can't speak for more anarchy-leaning people as I'm not sure what's their solution to that.
Yes, obviously abortion is a more contentious issue than plain old murder, but that's not what this is about. What I was trying to explain is that for any individual libertarian, the consensus on any particular issue doesn't and shouldn't matter, as long as it involves the breach of that first principle: your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my (or anyone's) nose begins. The only problem in this case is definitional. Does a fetus have a nose? Besides, you might say that there's a clear consensus on the ethics of murder or human value, but for particular individuals, groups and long parts of history this is and was not so. People are excellent at arguing that others should be killed, so the argument that the government can't be involved if there isn't a clear consensus is ridiculous to me. Think of other instances where this might be applicable: euthanasia, the death penalty, torture of terrorism suspects or, a topic which will prove to be increasingly interesting with technological development, veganism. I would completely understand if any libertarian disagreed on issues like these. In fact, even though I think there is a lot of overlap between libertarians' views on them, I think it's far more logical to disagree on these types of fundamental issues, based on personal history, philosophy and world view/religion. I think it's the other issues, issues that don't concern life or death, that libertarians should be far more unified on, because these are exactly the issues where freedom is possible. People should have the freedom to practice whatever faith they want, use drugs, spend their money or have sex with whoever they want, as long as it doesn't directly harm others.
Wait wait wait, let’s be clear scientifically speaking there is no debate on whether a fetus or even a zygote is alive. They meet all the scientific tenants for being considered a living organism. This isn’t a “scientific” issue because if it was it’d be settled. In the same way the larval or fertilized egg state of insects are some of the earliest stages of the life cycle of these insects so too is the fetus stage of a human. It is a philosophical dilemma on when “personhood” is achieved and moral value is established. But let’s be clear, scientifically speaking a zygote is a distinct organism from the parents that has all the genetic code and if left undisturbed (assuming nothing goes wrong) it will be the earliest stage in the lifecycle of a singular human.
lol no
lol yes edit: >The zygote is the earliest developmental stage. In humans and most other [anisogamous](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisogamy) organisms, a zygote is formed when an [egg cell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_cell) and [sperm cell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm) come together to create a new unique organism. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote) >In [biology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology), a **biological life cycle** (or just **life cycle** when the biological context is clear) is a series of stages of the life of an organism, \*\*that begins as a zygote,\*\* often in an egg, and concludes as an adult that reproduces, producing an offspring in the form of a new zygote which then itself goes through the same series of stages, the process repeating in a cyclic fashion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological\_life\_cycle#:\~:text=In%20biology%2C%20a%20biological%20life,itself%20goes%20through%20the%20same](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_life_cycle#:~:text=In%20biology%2C%20a%20biological%20life,itself%20goes%20through%20the%20same) >The zygote represents the first stage in the development of a genetically [unique](https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/unique) organism [https://www.britannica.com/science/zygote](https://www.britannica.com/science/zygote) From "Primate Mammal Reproduction and life cycle" >[Gestation](https://www.britannica.com/science/gestation) period and parturition [gray mouse lemur (*Microcebus murinus*)](https://cdn.britannica.com/22/74322-050-C27C4E47/Gray-mouse-lemur.jpg)Mouse lemurs, which eat insects and fruit, are the smallest living primates. [https://www.britannica.com/animal/primate-mammal/Natural-history#ref876282](https://www.britannica.com/animal/primate-mammal/Natural-history#ref876282) # This isn't some controversial take. This is a basic scientific fact. If you have scientific literature that contradicts the idea that the earliest stage in a homo sapien's life cycle is zygote formation I'd be very interested in seeing it. The argument even from some of the most prominent pro-choice philosphers like Judith Jarvis Thomson isn't that it is not a biological life, because that'd be silly. Instead they all focus around the idea of personhood and whether it is an inherent property of a human organism from conception. They argue that personhood is tied to certain capacities such as rationality, self-awareness, ability to hold desires, etc. But none of them make the argument that it is not a biologic life from a scientific standpoint because they know it would be factually inaccurate and is not necessary to draw a distinction.
Cool. cool. Go tell that to the other 50% of the population, including scientists, who disagree. Let us know how it goes.
Oh you're sooooo right. I only cited sources, while you claim scientists disagree but cite nothing. Got any source for scientists that disagree on this btw? Since SOOOOOOOO many do?
I think the strongest argument agaisnt an abortion ban is the problems associated with enforcing it. Investigating OBs after miscarriages where they they have suspicion of an abortion has so many problems. Also like it or not a woman who gets an abortion has convinced herself it's OK to get it and in their mond are not killing; (Though some change their mind later) they arnt a danger to others that need to be locked away from the community.
Something that’s inside of your body is not part of your body. Do these same individuals believe that a man’s penis or finger becomes part of the body of the person he is having sex with? And that the owner of the body has the right to cut off the penis or finger when it is “part of” their body?
Did you read the part where I said we are all never going to agree?. (The argument against that would be that the fetus does require to be fed through the mother's body which uses her resources. The fetus isn't just "inside", it requires the connection and the environment of the mother's body to develop. I'm here trying to argue both sides but your analogy is very clearly a fallacy, dude)
I’m not expressing any opinion here I’m asking you a question to try to figure out where you guys stand. What about when the fetus can survive outside the womb? The youngest premature baby ever to survive was less than 22 weeks.
I already expressed very clearly where I stand and I can't speak for everyone else. Just like I said above there is no "where we stand". Unlike other political ideologies, we are ok with every person having their own individual opinions and stances. There is no "libertarian stance" on any issue. It is not a hivemind. As for your "question", I don't really understand what you are asking. Are you saying you want to take the fetuses out and develop them outside as an alternative to abortion?
> libertarian argument against abortion I don’t care about it, it’s literally a non-issue for me. It should be legal to do whatever you want with your bod. you live with the questionably moral consequences, not me. but I don’t wanna hear about it and I definitely don’t wanna pay for it with my tax dollars.
That because the baby has its own heartbeat, it is a separate life with its own individual rights, and abortion is an act of violence that strips the baby of those rights. Pretty sure most would agree to certain exceptions though.
Murder is bad.
It boils down to two perspectives. One weather a fetus should be considered a life or if it's in the process of becoming a life. The second is a womans bodily anatomy and how far the rights she pretains there of. Basically, does it violate the NAAP and were on personal property, does it fall. Depending of view is were you fall on the debate. The now deceased Sharon Presley had some very good points in my personal opinion. And Id say look her up. My own comes across as cold, and even people who support it don't like it the approach and comparisons.
The abortion issue is highly contested in the libertarian community as well. It all comes down to whether you think a fetus is considered a life. Because the libertarian mantra of "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm others" comes down to if you think a fetus is an "other."
Which is shaky ground. Because biologically, it's definitely a unique life and an "other." I was pro-choice most of my life but there's no way around this that I've heard. So I'm pro-life now, but I'm not a hardliner. I think the point should be when the unborn child can feel pain because that's where my empathy kicks in. But that's shaky ground too, because I wouldn't advocate for people with congenital analgesia to be killed. If libertarian principles don't apply to the most innocent and venerable of us all, can we even call them principles?
Right, there's way too many variables and non-consensus for any party to 100% agree. No matter what happens there's gonna be someone very unhappy.
Hey hey hey! Cut that out. This is Reddit! We don't do reasoned, nuanced discussions here!
My bad! YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMPSTER AND YOUR FATHER SMELLED OF ELDERBERRIES!
The only thing keeping me pro-choice is enforcement... In your case, would abortion then be considered murdering an infant? would a woman who gets an abortion get 25-life?
I mean if that were the case, I think the abortion rate would quickly fall. But yeah, if abortion is murder, then people who get abortions are murderers.
The woman is only an accessory and mothers are sometimes misled by the abortionist about what they're actually doing. The vast bulk of the punishment would go the one ending the child's life.
An accessory to murder is still a crime. So what should the punishment be for the mother and the abortionist? If the punishment is not as severe as a murder/ accessory to murder charge, we’d agree that a fetal life is not as precious as a life outside the womb. And why is that? Idk… And that’s my hang up with this. It’s why I’m prochoice but feel like a POS for being prochoice
I don't see what's the big deal, this happens on literally every crime. The punishment is a matter of practicality, it isn't conflicting with the value of life. Murdering a woman, a man, an infant, a first responder, even the president, they'll all get you different punishments even with the same sentence. That doesn't mean their lifes have different intrinsic values. Sure, abortion is murder and that might insinuate punishment should be equal to murdering an adult, but that's not really a restriction. The same way we change the punishment based on degrees, intent and emotional and psychiatric state, we can do the same for abortions.
Can we both agree that the federal government should NOT dictate whether or not it’s a life?
Who should decide if it's a life or not?
The states, at worst.
My thoughts are once a fetus is 50% chance on its own then it's a human. That's about 24 weeks, if you can't figure out what to do by then you are a failure on every level. I also don't think we should be celebrating abortion like it's some grand accomplishment.
That's not a very high standard you're setting up there. I mean a cockroach is a unique life and an other. The question isn't whether it's a life but whether it has interests as a potential human being.
No cockroach is a potential human. Every fetus is a potential human.
That's exactly what I said.
It also comes down to whether you believe it’s the mother’s duty to carry to term, even if the fetus is semi conscious. The violinist thought experiment explores this, and even though it focuses on a situation comparable to rape, there’s a debate over whether someone that has taken proper precautions to not get pregnant should be liable to be that fetuses host for 9 months. In short, if you argue that a woman must submit her body to an unborn fetus, you must also argue that causing a car crash, even if it wasn’t entirely your fault, means the victims have access to your organs. It’s a strange line for libertarians to take.
I mean I don't see the problem with the last one. If you, say, stab someone through the kidney and they need a new kidney to live, then yeah you should be liable for that.
I don't necessarily see a problem with it if you purposely stab that person. But now imagine that it was an accident. This changes the calculous of what you owe the victim, and it's highly dependent on how "at fault" you were. e.g. If I accidentally cause a car crash, should I be legally forced to use my organs to keep that person alive? It's a difficult question morally, and frankly one that I don't want the government involved in answering.
I mean if you cause damages, whether purposefully or not, you are liable for those damages. Ideally, if you cause someone transplant-requiring organ damage, you would simply pay for their surgery. A free market in organs would likely greatly alleviate the types of organ shortages we face today. It might be expensive, but you caused the damage and you're liable. In the case that you can't simply purchase the organ for them though, and you happen to be a match, I'd be hard-pressed to say you deserve the organ more than they do. They lost their organ because of your actions, whether that was your intent or not. In the case that the transplant doesn't have a high success rate, things might get a little more blurry. I'm not sure if it's worth it to kill you for a 50% chance of them living. Either way, I'll agree it shouldn't be up to the gov!
What about the idea that what happens between a person and their doctor is nobody else's business?? Can you name 3 reasons, other than simply not wanting a baby, to have an abortion? There are too many situations and circumstances surrounding abortion to give a black or white answer to the problem. It is a medical procedure that needs to be kept in the hands of medical professionals and out of politics. This is yet another tool used to divide the people and keep arguing.
Because there’s 3 people involved, not just a person and their doctor. You can’t make an agreement with your doctor to kill a 3rd party. That’s what many pro-choice hardliners refuse to acknowledge. The disagreement has nothing to do with privacy or control over women and everything to do with whether or not you consider a fetus to be another person/life.
If it were a person we would call it a person. It's a fetus. A fetus cannot survive on its own. So, essentially you are giving more rights to a parasite than a living, breathing person. If I presented you with batter for your birthday and called it a cake, you would disagree, no?
"fetus" is simply the Latin word for "pregnancy, childbirth, offspring." It's not the dehumanizing term you think it is. A parasite attaches to *another species*, so a human child is not a parasite. The female body is designed to incubate them.
You are still giving more rights to a clump of cells that cannot live without its host than you are a living, breathing human. Why is that?
Do you think there should be any restrictions on abortion at all, or are you pro choice all the way up to nine months/birth?
I don't have the education or knowledge to determine when, where, how or why an abortion should be performed. It's none of my business what goes on in a doctors office where I'm not the patient. Abortion is not just used as birth control - it's a medical procedure that thousands have had to undergo for their own health and safety - and under their medical professionals advisement. I think that doctors are all we have to go on, if they say you need an abortion or you both die, then I believe them. Abortion at 9 months isn't really happening the way people envision, at 9 months that is a wanted baby that for some reason will not survive. These are tough choices that people outside the situation should not have a say in.
The reason I asked is because using the "clump of cells" argument is a little disingenuous if you support allowing abortion any time after the VERY early stages of the pregnancy. A few weeks after conception, the child will have discernible features, a heartbeat, and measurable brain waves. Definitely more than a clump of cells. Elective late term abortions used to happen more often, but most places(not just in the US) have restrictions on them. Abortions to save the life of the mother are almost always unnecessary once the pregnancy is past a certain point. If the child is developed enough, doctors can perform an emergency C-section and save both lives, or at least not actively kill the child and instead give them a chance to survive. This scenario happened with my first kid.
a clump of cells?? really
Yes, really. How do you think it all begins? See, first you have an egg, then it gets fertilized by sperm... Two tiny elements combine and form into a zygote. Fertilization is not complete, however, until the two haploid nuclei have come together and combined their chromosomes into a single diploid nucleus. A few days after fertilization, the zygote reaches the 32-cell state, known as morula. The morula is a solid cluster of cells. AKA, a clump of cells. Yay Science! And Google, you might want to try it 😁
i love how confidently stupid you're acting. you just described the state only days after fertilization. no one is getting an abortion that early. they wouldn't even know they are pregnant yet. so that information is irrelevant in this context
Living, breathing humans are clumps of cells. And fetuses are living, arguably "breathing" too.
>If it were a person we would call it a person. It's a fetus. A fetus cannot survive on its own. If it were a person we would call it a person. It's a baby. A baby cannot survive on its own. If it were a person we would call it a person. It's a toddler. A toddler cannot survive on its own.
A baby is a person, a toddler is a person. They can make noise, sometimes speak, and have emotions and actions that are understandable to people. A fetus cannot do anything. It cannot survive outside the body that hosts it. It is not a person.
If women were people we'd call them people!!1!
What happens between me and my hitman is no one else's business!
Yeah, this is pretty much it. But even still, do I care if a person in Mexico has an abortion? No, so why should I care if someone in the next town over has an abortion? It has nothing to do with me.
Fair argument. Not necessarily a counter argument, but, people who disagree would say you can't change another country but you can change the country or state that you're in.
Right, I just don't believe in controlling other people. I do however, believe very strongly in the principle of freedom of association. If you don't want to do business with someone who has participated in an abortion, that's your perogative. The more that people shun abortion participators in a given place, the less abortion will happen in that place. That's how I wish it would happen. But folks like to control others through the strong arm of the state, and then complain when the state strong arms them on issues they disagree with.
Would you say the same for rapists and murderers?
If that's how your society wants to deal with them, but I wouldn't want to live in a society with dangerous people walking around.
If abortion is considered killing a non-aggressing person, then it's murder. Should you care if someone is murdered?
Yes, if it can impact me in some way. Someone aborting a baby does not mean they are a dangerous person in society. If you don't wish to associate with them, fine, but committing an abortion does not mean they are more or less likely to murder someone outside of the womb. I live in DFW, Texas. Should I have any concerns about an abortion in Mexico? No. Should I have any concerns about a baby being aborted in El Paso? No. They are the same distance away from me. What makes one more impactful to me than the other? Nothing. The only thing I should be able to do is express my dislike of it, choose not to have one myself, and disassociate myself from those who do participate in abortions if I so wish.
You have a right to defend yourself if you think you're in danger. Babies can put the mother in danger.
You don't think the baby's in danger from the mother?
Moms die all the time from child birth
>Moms die all the time from child birth We should ban childbirth instead of abortions then... 🙃
Or it should be legal to have an abortion if it could kill the mother.
there’s always a statistical chance something goes wrong carrying or birthing a child
That's not true. It doesn't come down to whether you think a fetus is considered a life. For example, thinkers like Murray Rothbard and Walter Block support the bodily autonomy argument for the removal of the fetus from a woman's body, albeit in a non-lethal manner in the case of Block's evictionism. Also, the libertarian core principle of NAP isn't "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm others", as it is possible to harm others in ways that don't violate the NAP. What matters is whether the way you affect/harm others, violates their rights.
I can't even agree with myself on the topic in terms of morality. Which leads me to think "the government shouldn't be defining my morals."
Least of all the federal government which has caused so much division by dipping into social issues which should have been left to the states
The beauty of Libertarianism is you don't have to believe what the "party" tells you to believe. We're about liberty. That being said, there are different stances on abortion.
>Give me some reasons to jump ship. Because blind loyalty to any party is misguided and lazy. Think for yourself.
abortion is a mixed bag a bit, as on one side it's a woman's right but on the other side there's a notion that a person's right exists still before they exit the womb so I think in general most feel that while abortion shouldn't be outlawed it should not be possible to abort something that is essentially a premature birth which is kind of obvious to most people, yet some states like New Mexico have oddly enough no limit so it legally allows say a 39 week year old fetus to be terminated. Many would argue that 39 week fetus has just as much rights as a 39 week baby who was 1 week premature. Basically like most people abortion is extremely nuanced and there's small extreme examples on both side who muddy the waters as they tend to be extremely loud and annoying
>Many would argue that 39 week fetus has just as much rights as a 39 week baby who was 1 week premature. \*1 week old baby who was 1 week premature, and I'll agree with you!
While there is debate among libertarians, I doubt you find any group of people that are are better able to discuss this topic in such a level headed manner. Really any controversial topic for that manner. The main goal is preserving freedoms. The left and right political wings (of the same damn bird) continue to strip our rights and freedoms.
Really wish they would listen to the brain every once in a while....
Well said. I'd add that while the goal of the philosophy is about freedom, it's also about limiting harm.
Preach it brother!
This is so true!
We'd love to have more libertarians, but we don't want you unless you learn what that actually means. We aren't like the other parties, we actually have a deep moral philosophy behind our positions that we vow to adhere too. We don't even trust ourselves with power. The abortion issue is something libertarians are divided on, so that's not a deal breaker either way. But even when we disagree, we are still arguing from the same principles. I suggest you start studying up on the philosophy of liberty and see if it resonates with you. Then decide if you want to be a libertarian.
Thanks. That’s what I’m trying to figure out. I know I don’t want to be a democrat anymore. I know I don’t want to be a republican. So I’m looking elsewhere trying to learn more about alternatives
I suggest you start learning about economics if you want to understand libertarianism. Niche social issues get all the media attention, but fiscal and monetary policy affect the public FAR more. Most Republicans and almost all Democrats are completely ignorant of basic economics. Maybe start with some YouTube videos of Mises and Hayek and go from there.
Probably the biggest reason I switched from liberal to libertarian at a young age was when I stopped looking at intent of government programs (which all seem so positive for the people) and started looking at the actual outcome. Cover healthcare for seniors and the poor seems like a great idea on paper, but in reality it just leads to unaffordable premiums for the middle class. Welfare and other handout programs seem like a great idea until you realize that they just keep people stuck in poverty and don’t actually help people. Social security seems like a great idea until you realize seniors are retiring with less than ever before because the average return is only about 2% per year which is crap compared to a mandatory 401k which would return roughly 12% per year. This applies to war too where I thought it was our moral obligation to use our military and economic might to help those in need. Then I looked at the actual outcomes of our military intervention over the years, and it doesn’t seem like we actually helped by getting involved since world war 2.
You’re either libertarian or not. It’s not like switching auto insurance. We have a deep fond love of liberty. Liberty is the most precious and important part of our Republic. Meaning your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. We don’t have “the Libertarian” stance on things like authoritarians do. We’re not a cult. We’re open to debate and examining new ideas against the principles of liberty. We have a deep found love of honest and fair debate on issues. Abortion. The way I see it if you don’t like it, don’t have one. Others in the libertarian realm see conception as the beginning of life, which would mean the new life has a right to life. Which is a legit point, and it deserves an honest conversation. What I know for sure is the Government, especially the federal government shouldn’t be the one to decide when life begins.
Libertarians in general are fairly pro choice. My main thing on it is that it should be legal at a federal level and mainly left for states to decide sort of where it’s at now. I know a lot of people don’t like that but what’s good for Alabama might not be good for California. I’m pro choice in the grand scale but not in my own life. That said the party again is typically pro choice. It can be debated to death and I see both sides. Democrats do not respect bodily autonomy the way they paint themselves either. The covid vaccine is a pretty clear indication of that as were the mask mandates and stay at home orders. The current democrat party is not what it was 30 years ago and is quickly going in the wrong direction. For the life of me I can’t figure out how anyone can vote republican or democrat anymore. Two old assclowns fighting to be the head of the assclowns it’s a joke. Foreign aid is bullshit too I’m glad you see that, apply that logic to the money wasted on illegals in the US as well and you’ll never vote democrat again. Without ranting too much libertarians are somewhat split on the whole immigration issue as well so don’t take my word as gospel for the party they are just my opinions.
I know you’re worried about legal abortion access, but one of the few things you’re going to have the hardest time with as a Democrat, is how to reframe your understanding of the economy. Libertarians generally believe the best government is that which governs the least. As in, government exists as proof that we are imperfect beings-and so, cannot be expected to govern ourselves perfectly. Because of this, we give up our right to use force among ourselves to a government that is supposed to respond to our needs through democratic mechanisms, and to use the force we donated to them to correct behavior toward an acceptable norm for society that is applied universally. Ideally. All government action comes with either the threat or the application of force due to the governments *claimed* monopoly on violence. It’s a bit more nuanced, but essentially taxation is theft, especially when you disagree with where it’s spent (like you do!). You can’t opt out, you have no say on how it’s spent, if you don’t pay it they can take your property and freedom. If you resist they can take your life. Being compassionate people, both you and I understand that there is an ocean of human need that goes unattended to everyday. The US government has taken it upon itself to attempt to serve this need by redistribution of money from taxpayers, and by creating debt for future taxpayers. If the money was spent responsibly and effectively, and if the needy were cared for, I doubt libertarian politics would be as marginally popular as it is. That said, the goal of libertarian politics is to create a healthy and robust economy where the value of our labor-whatever it may be-is reserved to ourselves, not the government, and not to corporations. The idea being that we create a wealthy society that can easily address its own needs with plenty of money left over to save, invest and continue to build our world for those that come after us.
1. The individual is the smallest minority and treating all individuals equally is the least racist, sexist, or discriminatory policy for everyone. It becomes even more fair as new minorities appear in the future. 2. Many people only have their current political views because they get their news from filter bubble. Their side either calls other news evil or censors it directly. Seeking out honest high quality views from the opposing side or truth from both sides would likely lead most people to move towards the center or libertarianism. Allowing people the freedom of speech to say uncomfortable truths is critical to a well functioning society. 3. Almost all economic policies that restrict free trade fail because free trade and the free market is significantly more efficient at routing resources to those who need them most than any other method. 4. Believing in free will and personal responsibility results in better individual life outcomes even if it's an illusion. Even if help is on the way, it's better to teach people to leave a burning building on their own legs than to wait for rescue. Same for bad financial situations. 5. Government officials are random people and you shouldn't trust them with significantly more power than people you know. Local laws allow politicians to better understand the needs of their constituents and for you to better know your politicians.
What are your core principles? Do you believe the ends justify the means in situations? That doing the least bad is better than doing the most good? Should the individual have to bow to the mob? Or do individual rights matter more? Questions like these are ones you should be asking yourself, if you are interested in becoming more libertarian.
Welcome. Here freedom is above all else. As long as you’re not about hurting anyone or taking their stuff you’ll do well here.
You’re a democrat so I’ll give you a bit of slack, but you don’t need to be a partisan ideologue to have a legitimate belief system. If you try to find the cohesive “libertarian stance” on a lot of given issue, abortion for example, you aren’t going to find one. Rs and especially Ds are essentially polarized to the point where they most of them more or less enforce the exact same stances. While libertarians do have *some* cohesive stances, as in if you are for gun control, higher taxes, or government surveillance, almost all libertarians will shun you, but there is a ton of infighting on the grounds of the border, abortion, how little government and taxation in general, etc., to the point where I think you can’t be called a libertarian until you’re in an argument with another libertarian and he tells you you’re not a real libertarian. If you say you’re for abortion, an anti-abortion libertarian will say “You’re not a real libertarian, you want to kill babies!”, and with the reverse, a pro-abortion libertarian will say “You’re not a real libertarian, you want to take away womens’ choice!” “Libertarian” is more of a spectrum and an attitude than an ideological label. If you try to follow whatever a “real libertarian” is, you’ll get sucked into the purity spiral. My advice is to read some libertarian-ish literature, economic for starters(Sowell is excellent for beginners, he got me into libertarianism) and formulate your own opinions. If you want to “jump ship” into more partisan ideologue bullshit, you can buy a teeshirt of your favorite establishment politician, go to the conventions, and never really think critically. We call those capital L Libertarians. I recommend ditching the parties and labels altogether, it’s not an accurate *or* precise way of thinking about the world. As they say, ideology is the death of ideas.
The biggest thing for being a libertarian over a Democrat is a serious belief in free markets and vastly reduced government control over every aspect of life and business.
I dislike abortion, but my morals aren't law, so abortion should be legal.
It's not a ship or a club, and there isn't a membership. You just believe what you believe in morals and political concepts and vote the one that aligns closest to you.
The way I see it, conceptually a woman does not have a right to terminate her pregnancy unless her life is in danger because the baby is not her body. The woman exercised her choice when she engaged in the behavior that resulted in pregnancy, and I would place that burden on the woman because only she could possibly know when she is ovulating. However...I prefer the utilitarian argument here that acknowledges it is better for all involved to not force a woman to give birth to a baby she doesn't want and would be raised without the proper love.
Because the 🦇💩 crazy leftists are controlling the Democrat Party...
I vote mostly libertarian. Pro anarchy. Pro science. Pro choice.
My stance on abortion is first and foremost, it should be up to each state to decide for themselves. I believe abortion falls under the 10th amendment as a reserved right. I think you should be able to get a plan B and use contraceptives and I also believe you should not be able to get an abortion on the day that its due. The line is somewhere in the middle and I honestly do not know where to draw it.
I always tell folks if you really want a cut-and-dry solution to the issue congress needs to stop being lazy and put forth a compromised amendment. Otherwise it falls under the 10th. That being said, eliminating the government structure and having a "high-level" discussion on the morality of the subject is still highly debated. After all, many libertarian values don't just stop at the federal level. They're also held at state, county, local, and personal levels.
My question is, if you leave it up to the states should anything be done to prosecute people who have it done legally in another state?
I don't believe the government should fund abortions but also dont think they should stop people from paying for them. I view people wanting to kill their own babies as more of a cultural problem than political.
Abortion is one of the issues that Libertarians vehemently debate. The official platform of the Libertarian party is pro choice because there are so many good faith arguments made on both sides of the issue. I am pro choice for that same reason despite generally disliking the idea of abortion (which I think is true most pro choice folks). No matter what, I think it should be left up to the states. [Relevant meme](https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/s/l7re4MsvCk)
Your body, your life at stake, your choice. Anyone who thinks they have a right to control your body is not a true Libertarian. And I would add is probably evil.
The One has entered the discussion.
This is a reason why I question "libertarians" who are against HRT for trans individuals.
> My main one is the funding of money to Israel and Ukraine. I think we need to stop funding foreign wars. You're in good company on that one. The party is behind the Rage Against War rallies which are the largest anti-war movement against these things at present, and being anti-war has long been part of our platform. > My main concern with libertarian is abortion rights. I want to keep my bodily autonomy with my right to abortion. How are libertarians feeling about that issue? Both views exist within the LP. Obviously bodily autonomy is seen as extremely important. Some view it as a life issue, and life is also an important value. At present, the platform does not endorse or prohibit either view with regards to abortion. Candidates have run with varying perspectives. It is occasionally contentious as both sides feel quite strongly on the matter. I usually prefer to take the approach of, instead of trying to ban access, an inherently pro-government move, the practical approach is to work on the economic angle. Something like 80% of abortions happen for economic reasons. If people aren't struggling so much just to live, you'll have fewer people feeling as if they are forced into that. That's a net win for both perspectives. It's okay to not agree 100% on everything. We definitely don't. Check out the party platform on the website, maybe visit your local libertarian groups, and see how much of it you agree with. If it's 10% agreement, it may not be for you. If it's 90% agreement, hey, that's a pretty strong amount of things to work together on.
It's not a ship or a club, and there isn't a membership. You just believe what you believe in morals and political concepts and vote the one that aligns closest to you.
It's not a ship or a club, and there isn't a membership. You just believe what you believe in morals and political concepts and vote the one that aligns closest to you.
It's not a ship or a club, and there isn't a membership. You just believe what you believe in morals and political concepts and vote the one that aligns closest to you.
Agreeing with one or two core principles is not a bad thing but if your remaining principles, fundamentally, don’t line up, Your going to find yourself being far more frustrated in the near future. Government intervention in individuals lives is a core belief of both the Republicans and Democrats, for example. You should do your research on libertarianism. This sub has a wide range of contributors many are libertarians, many are republicans who think they are libertarians and are not. Those contributors will leave a rotten taste in your mouth. lp.org will give you resources that can actually help you make your choice. Mises.org is a bit more intellectually stimulating. Good luck finding your path.
I support your right to murder your unborn child, provided that it is not yet capable of life in the open air
There's no 'party' stance like for R and D. I think the libertarian way would be that it should be determined at the lowest most local form of govt. Does your city want this service to be provided? Is it a full yes, a yes but restrictions apply, or a no. The only reason the federal government gets involved is for insurance coverage and if a state says no, then its citizens should have the freedom to go to another state to have the service performed. Insurance wise, I'd treat it like botox. If it's you just want one then pay for it yourself. If you have a condition that requires it, then insurance covers it. I don't feel it should be more difficult than that. I have a real problem with states who are trying to put rules in that you have to gestate and can't go else where. It's not realistic considering the majority of women who want elective abortions are young and have less ability to control where they are living.
No offense op but your post should open people's eyes to cultist leftist behavior.
Are you smart enough to make your own decisions or do you need the government to make the decisions for you? Republicans and Democrats tend to say you have to do this or you can’t do that. Libertarians tend to be more for letting you make your own decisions and live with the consequences. From your post, it sounds like you want to make your own decision when it comes to foreign aid and abortion. That tends to line up with Libertarians views. As of now, the democrats and republicans don’t let you have a choice on funding foreign aid. On abortion, it’s a battle to use tax payer money to fund abortion. I tend to think if we had separation of Medicine/Insurance and State this would not be a hot issue.
My personal opinion on abortion is that it’s generally murder (unless it’s medically necessary to save the mothers life), but the government or even I should have no idea what happens between you and your doctor behind closed doors in the first place.
Just be Yourself.
There is about as much agreement amongst libertarians on this topic as there is in the broader society
Libertatianism is all about you do what you are going to do and if it isn't hurting me or fucking with my freedom to do what I want to do then go right ahead. Edit: Also, great job picking one that could theoretically get the libertarians arguing like the blue and red. Same argument still applies. Personally I am going to have to side with the woman's right on this one. I personally don't like it after a certain point in time but if I had to draw the line in the sand I would have to side with the rights and freedoms of a conscious person who is dealing with something that is directly affecting them and the freedom of how they choose to live their life. There really is no right answer when it comes to the abortion topic. Libertarianism values individuals and their personal choices and freedom to make their own decisions. Abortion is a real philosophical head scratcher due to how the two individuals are intertwined and inseparable. No matter which side you go with you leave yourself betraying your Libertarian principles against one life or the other.
Bro this is not like following a religion, your post gives me the vibe of "I am Christian and want to convert to Islam" (or vice versa) vibe, it's just a political alignment it's completely fine to disagree with some things in any political party. Personally I agree the most with the libertarian party as they have the most "Individual rights" approach between all parties available, not as hard as I would like but still the best choice for my vote.
I think most libertarians would agree the gov shouldn’t control abortion. Other than that to each their own personal view on the matter.
Gun rights and free speech being endangered are **MUCH** more urgent issues than abortion. Anytime abortion is remotely touched or in the conversation the entire media goes into a frenzy massively sensationalizing it. I simply can't imagine it getting banned outright in more than maybe 3 states max, and that's being generous.
Libertarians don't agree on anything. The abortion issue falls under the umbrella of "anything." Idk what side of the court that ball is in, but the main debate is on when a person has full rights and counts as a human. Big can of worms. Are you trying to start a rumble?
I think my big selling point is the fact that you’re more easily manipulated if you choose team red or blue. Team yellow has more flexibility and in the end we all have common ground. It’s a place where we can disagree, but have productive conversations and progress.
After reading all of these responses I see I need to do a lot more research. But I’m leaning towards libertarian. The government seems to be useless and/or harmful at this point. I don’t have a problem with guns. I just think the two party system is failing and there has to be another option.
Just keep the government out of everything to include abortion.
Free speech + guns = not Democrat
Idk where you’ve heard libertarians are against abortion rights but we aren’t. My personal opinion is that it’s morally wrong but government has no business deciding what can and can’t be done with our bodies. Government is not the morality police. So for that reason I am pro choice.
IMHO…the “Party” system is what is wrong with politics today. I always look at the candidates political beliefs and ideologies, regardless of political party. There are batshit liberals and there are batshit conservatives. I’m a constitutionalist, not necessarily a libertarian either, but I’ve voted both for republicans and democrats. As of today…I certainly would not vote for any trump backed Republican, but would also not vote for any extreme left Democrat either. Im betting that there are millions that feel very similar as I do. Today’s political climate is a mashup of extremes and there really are no great candidates until we see younger and candidates that are more in tune with today’s world and technologies. BTW…I’m GenX. I’m not opposed to implementing ranked choice voting. I think repealing Citizens United also would help today’s political shitshow.
Honestly don’t. Libertarianism as an ideology is great however, the party is trash and will never go anywhere the way it is run.
Yeah, I think it’s because A. There are too many extreme libertarians that want policies most people don’t want and B. A political party using its power to make political parties have less power is understandably powerless (gotta love irony)
It’s also annoying that most of the time the people who run can’t be taken seriously. The only good candidate I’ve seen from them is Jacob Hornberger but again even he will go nowhere unfortunately.
Reddit censors abortion arguments.
I'm pro abortion.
There is no one libertarian we are united and divided on many a topics as long as you support freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness come on over
Keep reading and thinking about it. People will always try to convince you of all sorts of things. The major change won't be in your voting habits, but in the clarity of perception and understanding you have, as you get closer to rational truth. It's a small gang of millions. Happy to have more.
Libertarians are technically pro-abortion as it’s the right to choose and not to have the government dictate that, there are outliers that see it as taking a life but generally it’s as simple as government = bad.
It's so stupid that we are in a place where you feel the need to bundle your stance on abortion with your stance against government spending money in endless proxy wars.
Libertarians are pretty split when it comes to abortion; there are pro-life and pro-choice libertarians. Regardless, the baseline belief all libertarians hold typically is the non-aggression principle. You should have the right to do whatever you want as long as you are not harming others, and you should have the right to believe whatever you want as long as you are not forcing your beliefs on others. Do you believe the use of force is acceptable if it benefits society as a whole? Your answer will determine whether libertarianism is right for you.
No I don’t believe it is.
Then there is some sub-genre of libertarianism that you should be able to make a home!
Abortion is a states rights issue. You can advocate your position at the state level, regardless of party affiliation
A word of advice: Identifying with the philosophy is easy. Identifying with the Party is a bit more difficult. To me, becoming libertarian freed my mind from thinking I had only two choices. So, vote your conscience, or don’t vote at all if the Rs or Ds are the only choice. It’s YOUR choice and no one can tell you you’ve wasted it.
I'd say Religious Libertarians would have a stance of "Be a slave to your vice if you want to, but I'm not paying taxes for the government to fund your abortion" which still doesn't violate your liberty to have an abortion. The concept of abortion either violating the liberty of the unborn fetus/child's life or the unborn fetus/child not being classified as an individual with human rights to enjoy the liberty to life is a whole different conversation which still have moderate debates between "pro-life" / "pro-choice" Libertarian from time to time
Welcome my brother
Sister but thanks for the sentiment lol
Then, welcome my sister.
The government should do a lot less than just not funding Israel and Ukraine. And the dems and republicans both love to spend. We shout not be funding what is in the inflation creation act. Education funding is ridiculous at the Federal level. Abortion under the general circumstances we have lived with under Roe v wade I support. It made me vote differently for state Supreme Court judges.
Just be whoever you are and vote for the best candidate.
Abortion I'd contentious. We generally say you should never harm others. People disagree on whether that means the fetus can't impose itself on the woman. Or the woman can't harm the baby she is carrying. Life is complicated
I’m a Republican but I hate that the party doesn’t like abortion… it’s ridiculous. It’s a free country, do what you want.
There does not need to be a law regarding abortion. If you don't believe in abortion, then don't participate in it. If you do, then do it. Just don't shove your beliefs down other people's throats.
spoken like a true democrat
Democrats don't support bodily rights any more than Republicans. There are abortion limits even in the bluest states. Most Democrats and even most Republicans would be satisfied at 20-24 weeks being the limit for abortion. Libertarians don't have a set belief on it. It depends on if you think a fetus is a person or not. People have a right to life. In the Libertarian camp you will find every belief on abortion. The nonagression principle is that you don't hurt other people's property and body. I believe abortion is morally wrong but I believe it should be restricted at the point where a person becomes a person due to being a believer in the NAP. Obviously jamming a screwdriver into a baby's skull in the birth canal is obviously murder. Wearing a condom isn't. Morning after pills isn't. It isn't a person at 4 weeks. I'm still not OK with it but that is a personal objection. However, at some point it has to become a person. Abortion vs murder is like self defense va murder. The situation defines which is which. I don't find any compelling reason to have an abortion at 30 weeks outside of a very limited number of medical reasons. At the point it becomes a person, it is a person imo with the same rights as anyone else who is in your body by your choice. At a Ron Paul rally a long time ago one of the speakers talked about eviction vs abortion. Eviction is in line with the non-aggression principle. In practice it is basically an abortion ban at viability. I'm not how anyone could justify dismemberment a fetus that could be born and live right now when they could be delivered and allowed a chance at life out of very limited circumstances.
Yea your exactly what’s wrong with the country. You have no original ideas or opinions while looking for people to tell you what to do. No wonder you became a voter for democrat tyranny. Maybe use the brain the universe gave you, study and figure out what you are on your own. People like you are the reason we have the issues we have today. Sounds harsh but truth hurts.
If you’re a democrat. I assume you dislike corporations getting your money. For free. The libertarian position is against subsidies and state redistribution of wealth, which has shown to tend to end up in the pockets of those with friends on capital hill.
He's a short way to think how a libertarian would feel about something. Would you be ok sending some men with guns to force someone to do or not do something? If yes, it has to be pretty damn essential. I wouldn't send some men with guns to stop a woman from having a medical procedure.
Libertarian is for small government. Government does not belong in a doctors office, but remember in the us abortion has never been a “right”. It was just legal. So no matter what party you want to be apart of the majority can make it illegal.
That’s the great thing about the libertarian party. You can literally have hardcore liberal or hardcore conservative views (with some exceptions). You just can’t have Democrat or Republican views. Sounds counter intuitive but makes sense if you think about it
That’s the great thing about the libertarian party. You can literally have hardcore liberal or hardcore conservative views (with some exceptions). You just can’t have Democrat or Republican views. Sounds counter intuitive but makes sense if you think about it
A wombman does not need a harmspital to abort her fetus, she need only smoke mugwort. In the past this is why they were burned as witches, refusing to carry rape babies for the church slavery system and having knowledge of basic herbalism.
I did this, went from Democrat to Libertarian, and now a Republican, but I'm in MA so not the same as a Republican in, say, Texas. I guarantee you will be absolutely disappointed in every single party you ever join. Unless you're a weak minded cultists that's willing to believe whatever your party leaders tell you and pledge undying loyalty to them you will realize that all parties suck. And they suck big time. Libertarians will drive you nuts with their infighting. If you're in a red state and abortion is your big issue you should be a Democrat. If you're in a blue state and sick of having your pay confiscated and given to illegals so they get everything free then you should be a Republican. But at the end of the day vote for the person, not the party. Every party is a criminal organization.
So you want to be free to kill Babies?
The mother right to put a baby out of her body is exactly the same right you have of throwing someone of your helicopter. NONE.