Doesn’t the inclusion of that last, emphasized text actually constitute taking a position for pro-choice/pro-abortion and against pro-life/anti-abortion? Shouldn’t it say, rather, that “we therefore take no party stand on the issue.”
The libertarian philosophy seems to dictate different, diametrically opposing views on abortion, given different, diametrically opposed premises (suprise, surprise):
If the fetus is not a human life, libertarian philosophy would seem to dicate a pro-choice position (since the mothers rights would carry the day over non-existent rights of a body part or a non-human-life mass of tissue).
If the fetus is a human life, libertarian philosophy would seem to dictate an anti-abortion position (since an innocent’s right to life trumps a more responsible party’s right to convenience, and in consensual sex situations the mother certainly played more of a role in creating the situation than the baby did, and regardless of the situation of conception, as a society we typically let tortious injuries remain where they fall if they cannot be transferred to a more responsible party, and we certainly do not arbitrarily transfer the injury from a tort victim mother to an innocent party baby, which would be an aggression in violation of libertarian philosophy).
Since the libertarian philosophy cannot determine which premise is correct, and therefore which political outcome is dictated by the libertarian philosophy, why does the libertarian party take a stand? Keeping the government “out of the question” seems to support pro-choice. It would seem to be more consistent for the party to allow their candidates to have mixed views on the topic, rather than have a platform plank addressing the topic.
So, is there an inconsistency in the libertarian party platform? Or, am I misunderstanding something fundamental regarding libertarianism?
The line in bold seems to me to mean that the government shouldnt make a decision. It doesnt take a pro or con position, but more of an "its not the governments concern’ position. It doesnt call for out lawing it or legalizeing it , just leaveing it alone.Then again I could just be way off the mark.
But as Topo points out in his analysis, for those who take the position that the fetus is a human being, government intervention against abortion is ethically demanded. Only if the fetus is not a rights bearing entity ought the government not to interfere. Therefore, the party has taken a de facto pro-choice position.
I’m pretty sure that anything not specifically legislated is legal. That is to say, Congress only makes things illegal. If you keep government out of the abortion issue you are de facto allowing it and then it is up to individual morals to sway the argument.
Libertarian of course eats and breathes this stuff and seems content with the OP but I’ll offer an alternative apprach and see how it flies.
The OP mentions that you have two takes on abortion…whether the fetus constitutes a human life or not (and thus has individual rights or not). The Libertarian stance seems to broadly be based on government staying out of the equation (any equation) wherever possible (obviously there is still a place for government…we’re not talking about anarchy).
Given that whether the unborn constitutes a life unto itself with its own priviledges cannot be know (at least today and taken as a matter of fact and not belief) it is consistent that Libertarians would say that government should stay out of it. It has to be up to the individual in this instance to make their own moral and ethical judgment because the government cannot produce an air tight case to override the individual. In this case the individual has to be the mother as we cannot determine that the unborn should have a superceding right over the mother.
[sub]NOTE: I do not mean any of the above to be an argument for or against abortion rights. While I certainly have an opinion on that subject that is not the direction of this thread.[/sub]
[I can’t believe I’m risking Libertarian’s wrath by posting again, having done so well in the OP! ]
Hmmm. I see your point. But is the libertarian tendency against government interference the primary tenet of libertarian philosophy, or just a by-product of that philosophy?
I read libertarian philosophy as dictating non-aggression by any party, whether individual or government. Of course, this often places the Libertarian Party on the side of restriciting government so as to restrict aggression. But, the government is authorized, nay obligated, under libertarian philosophy to use defensive force to prevent aggressive force, is it not? (In my mind, that is what differentiates libertarianism from anarchism, a philosophy more directly against governmental force of any kind.) Indeed, is that not the only legitimate purpose of government under libertarianism: to prevent/correct aggresion against individuals?
Consequently, a libertarian candidate for office can be loyal and consistent with libertarian philosophy by arguing for the abolition of abortion (given an individually accepted premise), but be in direct conflict with the Libertarian Party Platform.
It is a by-product. The primary tenet is the Noncoercion Principle. The purpose of government is to suppress coercion (initiated force or fraud). It has not other purpose.
I believe that plank is better described as a copout, rather than inconsistent, pro or anti abortion.
Lots of issues can be “very sensitive” and “people, including Libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides”.
If the issue is important enough to be in the platform, then the party should decide one way or another and why. Just saying we can’t decide therefore leave government out of it is retreat into nondecision.
Keep in mind that the link given is not the platform, but a sort of headline news version of it. The entire abortion section of the actual platform reads as follows:
I argue that the Libertarians have decided it, and they have decided it in agreement with the Democrats: Keep the government’s hands off our bodies.
The other parties admittedly decide on every issue. But it sometimes seems that they do so based solely on what the other side said first or on some ad hoc determination, rather than based on any internal philosophical direction of the party itself.
On what basis does a Republican decide the abortion issue? Religious morals? Does that basis work to explain other Republican positions such as those regarding economic and business issues?
On what basis does a Democrate decide the abortion issue? Rights of the woman? Does that basis work to explain other Democratic positions such as those regarding economic and business issues?
You can summarize the Libertarian Party’s goal in two words: “limiting coercion,” and then go off and apply it to every issue. That same “basis” applies to all issues (or should), and to the extent that it does not, perhaps the party SHOULD remain silent. That’s actually a novel and somewhat refreshing idea! It is, effectively, the party of limitations, after all. If they can limit themselves, they might set a good example.
]