I HATE THIS

in libertarian •  last year 

http://www.wwl.com/articles/adoption-option-bill-close-becoming-law

I hate things like this. Anytime I hear "State to regulate...", or "Government now requires..." I get my hackles up. This bill would require abortion clinics to educate their client on adoption. While I think that someone making a tough a choice should be fully informed about all of their options, the State telling a business how it is going to operate pisses me off. It should piss you off too. Take away the abortion emotional reactionary feelings you have either way. This is government forcing a business to operate in a way that is contradictory to how that business is managed.

Do I think that women coming in to get an abortion should be made aware of adoption as another choice? Absolutely! I do not own or manage an abortion clinic. Since I don't have the right to tell a business owner how to do something or what to do, I can't delegate a right I don't have to a third party to do it for me. Ultimately we will see some clinic out there not following this rule and somebody will get sued at the taxpayer's expense.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Totally agree with your take on this. While I realize that this is a hit button topic for many conservatives, but at the end of the day regulations like this only l serve to line the pockets of lawyers and politicians fund raising potential, they do little to really serve the public interest.

You can be pro-life without wanting to use state violence to force your will on others. Most people miss this point because they take the current state apparatus for granted. Most of the women getting abortions are young, poor, minority women. This should be the starting point when considering policies and initiatives to reduce the abortion rate. However, most pro-lifers are too wrapped up in their religious dogma and virtue signaling to step into the shoes of these women and address their needs, which would be the most effective way to stop abortions.

Many people see the fetus as a person. I venture that every person on this planet was a fetus at one time.

Come to think of it, the statement that all humans were once fetuses is one of the few absolutes we come across in life.

Radical libertarians seek absolute freedom. The concept of absolute freedom is paradoxical because it entails the freedom to take another person's freedom.

Classical liberals would recognize the paradox and realize that people do not have a freedom to take the lives of others.

This means that abortion falls into the murky grounds of moral philosophy.

Because abortion lies in a murky paradoxical area, I think that the legislation you mentioned is in order. It confronts people with the moral tradition that holds that human fetuses are people. It goes further by providing an alternative.

Classical liberalism holds that the primary purpose of government is to product the liberty of the people. Many hold that pre-born babies are people; So, this law falls squarely into the proper role of government.

·

Where does the state derive its moral legitimacy from? Let me guess, muh social contract.

·
·

I posted my definition of Classical Liberalism. I define it as the application of classical logic to the question of liberty. Rousseau and Kant were the beginnings of Modern Logic.

The US Founders appear to have been happy with the common law tradition and the ideas of natural law. I don't recall any claims in the Federalist Papers or Constitution about the state having moral authority.

·
·
·

I’m very familiar with classical liberalism. That’s the political tradition that I draw from. The founding fathers aren’t some infallible source of wisdom and their actions often deviated from the ideals of liberty.

Rights are moral claims are they not? You claim in your original post that abortion is a moral grey area, which I would agreee with, and that the state should therefore regulate it through legislation. This would imply that the state or rather the politicians and bureaucrats that make it up, is a moral authority. Where does this moral authority come from? How does a group of people who are more inclined to psychopathy, pathological lying, thievery, and other kinds of immoral behavior, compared to the general population, attain the status of moral authority?

·
·
·
·

The US Founders were not absolutists. They did not consider themselves infallible. They valued reason and compromise.

So, here is the dilemma: If a human fetus is a human; then it has an inalienable right to life. Killing a fetus denies a person their most fundamental right.

People in the pro-life life camp see abortion as murder.

The pro-life camp is not seeking to regulate abortion. They see abortion as murder and want it punished as such. They are not seeking regulation, they want to protect the fetus's right to life.

The pro-life case is extremely strong from multiple angles.

I like the laws that require abortionists to inform people of alternatives because it falls in the area of compromise.

The founders believed in reason and logic. The thing they did right was realize the need for compromise.

As I understand the law has the abortionist read an argument stating the case of the fetus and it includes an alternative. This brings the mother in contact with a very important moral issue.

When life begins is a super emotional issue. I think this law is a very good compromise.

·
·
·
·
·

I was asking you to justify the existence of the state itself not articulate an argument for being pro-life. I am pro-life myself, but there is a vast difference between means and ends. Saying you want a certain end result, in this case reducing abortion, does not automatically justify your means for getting there. You have to prove separately that your means for getting there is ethical and necessary.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Let's see. I said pro-lifers see abortion as murder (depriving a person of the fundamental right to life).

Truthfully, I cannot derive from the æther proof that murder is wrong. If a person is walking down a street killing people; it is customary for the police to shoot back.

I do not have a grand philosophical argument for the policeman's action.

The founders seem to be adherents of ideas like natural law and common law. Essentially, in the long western tradition, people have tried to develop laws that work well for humans.

When one looks at the classical liberal tradition, one finds people engaged in numerous debates about ethics. The debates often contradict each other.

The legal tradition is mesh of legal precedents and rulings. The founders clearly wanted a deliberative legislatures at the state and federal level to oversee and occasionally modify the laws.

The founders valued individual rights, but did not require the creation of grand philosophical systems to justify each law.

The founders appear to be following a middle path. They wanted a combination of legislatures, courts and a large private sector. They valued compromise and deliberation.

So, I see the law that you hate as a good compromise between those who see abortion as murder and want courts to try abortionists as murderers and those who believe that women are self-sovereign and have control over their body.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

You keep dodging my question. I don’t care what the founders think. Their thinking was limited by their own self-interests and the norms of their time. They also didn’t believe in equal individual rights, which is really the heart of moral law and the only thing that makes it feasible. They considered some people property and others second class citizens; basically a caste system not much different from the ones that existed in monarchist Europe at the time. If you wanted a coherent and meaningful exposition of natural law theory and individual rights you would have to turn to ‘radicals’ like Thomas Paine or Herbert Spencer in Victorian era England.

My question did not concern the morality of abortion or the desirability of reducing abortion. It was a question of whether the means of getting there was morally right. Your argument rests upon the implict assumption that the state or rather the federalist system is morally legitimate. A defense of this law necessitates a defense of all the evil shit government does, otherwise you’re just retreating to wishful thinking.