Posts Tagged ‘ abortion ’

"The killing of babies is one major area in which I strongly disagree with far too many who are (or claim to be) lovers of liberty, and who subscribe to the 'non-aggression principle.' But most (not all, of course) of those who disagree with me on when a child is a human, and whether abortion is an immoral action which DOES constitute aggression against another and innocent human, DO agree with me that infanticide IS immoral aggression, and that what this murdering thug did was evil. But the 'liberals' and Tranzis of the world, especially the vicious kind in control here in North America, do not see any problem." (04/13/13)

"If the U.S. Congress can get away with declaring by fiat that fertilized eggs are persons entitled to constitutional equal protection of the law, then it can just as easily and with the same justification declare that all human eggs and sperm cells enjoy the same constitutional rights. One religiously oriented absurdity leads to another." (03/21/13)

"Denying the right of a woman to abort involves denying the basis of libertarianism itself." (07/30/12)

"Because a child in the womb is helpless, not initiating violence, not committing aggression, and not there of its own accord, I believe that, to be consistent, libertarians should not only be opposed to abortion, but in favor of making it a criminal act just like murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, assault, and robbery would be in any libertarian society based on the non-aggression principle." (07/17/12)

"Did Roe v Wade settle the constitutionality question of anti-abortion laws once and for all?
Are anti-abortion laws unconstitutional -- period? An awful lot of anti-abortion zealots don’t think so. They keep chipping away and chipping away at the decision, hoping that one day an anti-abortion majority on the Supreme Court will turn back the clock on women’s rights. If they can do that with Roe v Wade, others can do it with Brown." (04/17/12)

"Some pro-choicers, who argue that abortion must be permitted exactly because the fetus carries no moral significance compared to the interests of the mother, have taken that premise to a logical conclusion, now explicitly arguing that a baby born has no rights that its mother is bound to respect, assuming the inconvenience and burden of caring for the baby are great enough to warrant killing the infant. I find this argument abhorrent, as do many pro-lifers and some pro-choicers, yet it is a corollary of one particular argument made to defend abortion (and an argument, I would add, that is entirely unnecessary to oppose all state intervention in abortion)." (04/06/12)

"If a law currently up for vote in the Virginia House passes his week and is signed by Governor Bob McDonnell, it will require many women seeking an abortion to be raped. No, you didn’t misread that." (01/21/12)

"Given the moral quandry of the pro-life position, which is unresolvable, a frequent defense is to switch gears and cast abortion on demand as suffering from its own quandry. This is typically expressed by stating that abortion on demand implies legitimizing infanticide. I would actually claim the opposite: that abortion on demand stongly legitmizes obligation on the part of the parent post-birth." (02/22/12)

"Now, I’m in a weird position to discuss this, because I’m a bit of a pro-life libertarian, but at the same time I’m very libertarian about being pro-life. I think when it comes to my wife and I, I’m very strongly pro-life. But that said, I’m not sure I’m strong enough in the belief in being pro-life that I’d throw a woman or a doctor in a cage for aborting a pregnancy." (02/20/12)