Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:16:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
660 times
|
| |
|
|
I too don't want to debate the broad topic of abortion, my own views are
unclear to myself at the moment (0).
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> (H)ow do you reconcile your views with your advocacy of
> Libertarianism (CMIIAW-- this is the impression I get from your posts in
> another strand of this thread)? Most of what I have heard about Libertarian
> views I have picked up from scanning (rather than reading in-depth) posts here
> so I could be wrong, but it would seem to me that they, of all people, would
> want to keep the government from being able to interfere with a woman's
> sovereignty over her own body, as Dave! puts it. Please note that I am not
> criticizing your views, just wondering how you come to terms with their
> apparent inconsistencies. Or did I misinterpret something?
Nope. You certainly did not misinterpret. One of the unofficial slogans of
the LP is "we're pro-choice.. on everything!"
If you'll recall from your scans of this newsgroup, I've said in the past,
repeatedly, (1) that when confronted with a question of what to do in a
situation, a proper libertarian (small or big L) tries to determine who are
the parties to the situation and what rights do they have. Then he or she
tries to determine what rights have been violated so far, and what possible
remedy exists.
This process isn't perfect. Libertarianism isn't perfect. There is no utopia
possible. (the LP claim is merely that Libertarianism is better than other
systems, not that it always comes to a perfect outcome).
Over time, there have been some issues where the LP has made a formal change
in policy because a new, more critical, or more detailed examination of the
question has caused the previous logical derivation to be called into question.
There are some issues on which the LP doesn't take a stand. There are a lot
of issues where the LP's stand consists of saying that the government ought
not to take a stand. Abortion is one of these.
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0008/convention_platform.html (2)
The membership of the LP is not of one mind on this. It's a controversial
issue. Arguably, there are a number of things in which when one says the
government ought not to take a stand, it means that defacto, the action is
to be allowed. Possibly not encouraged (by the mechanism of government
funding) but allowed.
Without attempting to provoke the discussion further I will say again, my
own mind is no longer as certain as it was. Who are the parties to the
rights calculus? And *when* do they become parties? Establishing that
question's answer clearly will do much to establish how to answer the
overall question.
Where I am at right now is with Dave!... that contraception is OK. Aborting
a fetus early on, one that is only potentially sentient is OK. But a fetus
one day away from term? Probably not unless it comes down to an immediate
life or death, mother or child, but not both, sort of choice.
If you take away from that some sort of idea that my mind is completely and
irretreviably made up and I am certain I am right, you'd be wrong. Someone
who carries out the rights calculus from a solid foundation (including
establishing the "who and when" of the parties) could well convince me
differently. That's true of everything, of course, but most things are
easier than abortion to work through cleanly.
0 - although my wife, after deciding to vote for Harry, at the last minute
voted for Gore anyway because she is about 75% a single issue voter, her
views on abortion are much clearer to herself than mine are to me... this in
a a state which went strongly for Gore anyway, showing that the "your vote
is not wasted" argument has very very tough sledding when push comes to
shove, even on people who can clearly articulate it to others and often do so.
1 - a point lost on some. It gets tiresome to respond to the same hackneyed
bromides and slogans over and over again when the "historical record" of the
newsgroup provides the answers to those who are industrious and interested
enough to do the research. It gets especially tiresome when it's clear that
the person taking the potshots doesn't really have anything cogent to add,
but just snipes away with little jabs that lack any critical thought behind
them.
You're not that way at all, so I'm delighted to try to answer your questions
where further clarification might be of help...
2 - some clueless person, in an uncritically composed snipe, suggested that
I haven't read the www.lp.org site, or am somehow unfamiliar with the
general warp and weft of the LP platform and principles. Since I've been a
small l libertarian since I was 14, and a party member since 1978, I find
that suggestion laughable. You should too.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) I'm Pro-Choice, but anti-abortion. How is that for fence sitting? What it means is, that given that my actions could bring a child into the world. I have discussed this with my wife, and said, that given the choice I would choose not to abort (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) I don't want to add fuel to a debate over the right to choice either since I'm certain no one's viewpoint will be swayed, but I would like some clarification. Are you thanking James for expressing an opinion with which you agree? If that is (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
