3 ms·

> I don't think it's fair to call someone who advocates against abortion and same-sex marriages a libertarian. Regarding abortion: Libertarians believe in indi

> I don't think it's fair to call someone who advocates against abortion and same-sex marriages a libertarian. Regarding abortion: Libertarians believe in individual liberties. So if you believe that an unborn child is a person, it is very consistent with libertarian-ism to protect its life. The crux of the debate is when does does a fetus become a person. Regarding same-sex marriages: Again, relating this question to personal freedom, a typical libertarian position is that in the eyes of the law and gov't, a gay marriage should be the same as a heterosexual marriage. However, an individual should have the freedom to not participate in a gay marriage. In other words, saying one person has the freedom to marry who they wish and another has the freedom to not participate in the wedding is very consistent with libertarian views.

morgante 12y ago
> So if you believe that an unborn child is a person, it is very consistent with libertarian-ism to protect its life. Is it though? Most libertarians say the government shouldn't force you to feed a starving person, but banning abortion means forcing a mother to feed and care for another person (even if you consider a fetus a person). > Regarding same-sex marriages: Can you explain how a governmental (even at the state level) distinction between marriage types is consistent with libertarian philosophy?
- crazy1van 12y ago
  > banning abortion means forcing a mother to feed and care for another person (even if you consider a fetus a person). There's a difference between murdering a person and being forced to feed him. So assuming for this argument that a fetus is a person, an abortion would be akin to murder. Being forced to care for the person would be akin to being forced to raise him. Libertarians who believe fetuses are persons are arguing you can't abort the baby, but you can have the baby adopted. > Can you explain how a governmental (even at the state level) distinction between marriage types is consistent with libertarian philosophy? I might not understand the question, but many libertarians want the government out of the business of defining marriage at all except where it relates to interacting with the government. Paul seems to have dithered on this issue quite a bit, but this quote of his to National Review in 2013 seems fairly libertarian: "I'm an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage...That being said, I'm not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn't mention marriage. Then we don't have to redefine what marriage is; we just don't have marriage in the tax code."
  - morgante 12y ago
    > Being forced to care for the person would be akin to being forced to raise him. Until the baby is born, it does depend entirely on the mother's resources. It literally pulls energy out of her blood stream. Now, I don't think fetuses are people, but if you believe they are then you have to admit that for the duration of the pregnancy the mother is compelled to feed and provide for that "person."
    - crazy1van 12y ago
      Yeah, it gets tricky to pick the policy that maximizes individual liberty when one person is biologically dependent on another to live. One way to analyze it is to look at which person sacrifices the greater freedom. If the mother terminates the pregnancy, the baby loses its life. If the baby is allowed to live off the mother's resources until birth, the mother sacrifices 9 months of her body's resources. Again, this all assumes the fetus is a person, which I believe is Rand Paul's position.
jebblue 12y ago
>> The crux of the debate is when does does a fetus become a person. The core of the debate should be human life is not terminable based on convenience. Anyone who argues that it is, personage, would have no way to argue against any war, past, present or future.
ScottBurson 12y ago
So if you believe that an unborn child is a person, it is very consistent with libertarian-ism to protect its life. But not everyone believes that a fetus is a person. In fact people have quite divergent views on that question, and I am inclined to doubt the debate will ever be finally settled. It is more a matter of religion than of science. I don't think it's consistent with libertarianism to enact an answer to that question into law when it is still so much debated.

morgante 12y ago

> So if you believe that an unborn child is a person, it is very consistent with libertarian-ism to protect its life. Is it though? Most libertarians say the government shouldn't force you to feed a starving person, but banning abortion means forcing a mother to feed and care for another person (even if you consider a fetus a person). > Regarding same-sex marriages: Can you explain how a governmental (even at the state level) distinction between marriage types is consistent with libertarian philosophy?

crazy1van 12y ago
> banning abortion means forcing a mother to feed and care for another person (even if you consider a fetus a person). There's a difference between murdering a person and being forced to feed him. So assuming for this argument that a fetus is a person, an abortion would be akin to murder. Being forced to care for the person would be akin to being forced to raise him. Libertarians who believe fetuses are persons are arguing you can't abort the baby, but you can have the baby adopted. > Can you explain how a governmental (even at the state level) distinction between marriage types is consistent with libertarian philosophy? I might not understand the question, but many libertarians want the government out of the business of defining marriage at all except where it relates to interacting with the government. Paul seems to have dithered on this issue quite a bit, but this quote of his to National Review in 2013 seems fairly libertarian: "I'm an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage...That being said, I'm not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn't mention marriage. Then we don't have to redefine what marriage is; we just don't have marriage in the tax code."
- morgante 12y ago
  > Being forced to care for the person would be akin to being forced to raise him. Until the baby is born, it does depend entirely on the mother's resources. It literally pulls energy out of her blood stream. Now, I don't think fetuses are people, but if you believe they are then you have to admit that for the duration of the pregnancy the mother is compelled to feed and provide for that "person."
  - crazy1van 12y ago
    Yeah, it gets tricky to pick the policy that maximizes individual liberty when one person is biologically dependent on another to live. One way to analyze it is to look at which person sacrifices the greater freedom. If the mother terminates the pregnancy, the baby loses its life. If the baby is allowed to live off the mother's resources until birth, the mother sacrifices 9 months of her body's resources. Again, this all assumes the fetus is a person, which I believe is Rand Paul's position.

jebblue 12y ago

>> The crux of the debate is when does does a fetus become a person. The core of the debate should be human life is not terminable based on convenience. Anyone who argues that it is, personage, would have no way to argue against any war, past, present or future.

ScottBurson 12y ago

So if you believe that an unborn child is a person, it is very consistent with libertarian-ism to protect its life. But not everyone believes that a fetus is a person. In fact people have quite divergent views on that question, and I am inclined to doubt the debate will ever be finally settled. It is more a matter of religion than of science. I don't think it's consistent with libertarianism to enact an answer to that question into law when it is still so much debated.