BreakPoint Blog

Banner
Banner
Unclear on the concept

In an article on pro-life women and feminism, columnist Kathleen Parker wrote, "I'm libertarian-leaning enough to insist that government should have no role in determining what anyone does with his or her body -- as long as no one else is hurt."

Seriously. You read that correctly. She actually wrote, "as long as no one else is hurt."

About abortion.

And this lady is supposed to be a conservative intellectual. If this is what truly passes for intellectualism in the conservative movement, we are in very deep trouble.

Comments:

Total: 24 << Previous Page     Next Page >>
We Need Both
.
Matt,

If you’re going to argue that “the best way to stop abortion is not through top-down legislation but through education and the transformation of individual hearts and minds”, what’s to keep some other well-meaning soul from arguing that “the best way to stop war/prison rape/human trafficking/terrorism etc is not through bringing the aggressors to justice but through education and the transformation of individual hearts and minds”?

We need both.

Making abortion illegal might not stop it altogether (although I’d argue it would put a huge dent in it and thereby save countless precious lives), at least it would remind this increasingly conscienceless society that it’s wrong, that it’s murder, and that there’s a price to be paid for taking the life of another.

We need both.
Matt, that doesn't hold water. Taken to its final conclusion, that position says that murder should not be against the law. The libertarians I know (I know quite a few and I lean that way myself) apply the Golden Rule to law, as Parker says herself "as long as no one else is hurt."

A lot of libertarians don't want government involved in abortion, but it is an inconsistent position. A child is murdered in an abortion. The child's rights are of no less value than the mother's.

To compare laws against abortion with gun restrictions is completely wrong. Laws against abortion, like laws against murder, protect innocents from harm. Laws restricting gun ownership protect no-one, as has been proven over and over again.

Abortion has skyrocketed since Roe-v-Wade. There is a direct cause and effect there. It has taken a rare, illegal procedure and made it into a sacred cash cow.
But what good is her proposed human rights argument if she herself isn't even committed to it? Parker wants to have it both ways. She wants to talk about the issue but not really come down on either side of it.
the libertarian position
You missed her explanation in the next paragraph:

"Obviously, the forming human life is destroyed, and thus I also can make a human rights argument against abortion. I think we should."

The libertarian position on abortion is somewhat complex. Libertarians are for as much freedom as possible. They also understand that law is not really a deterrent, as ever growing gun restrictions have shown. People determined to commit crimes are going to commit crimes. Abortion is obviously wrong, but making it illegal is going to stop abortions about as effectively as making drugs illegal has stopped drug use.

The best way to stop abortion is not through top-down legislation but through education and the transformation of individual hearts and minds.
Total: 24 << Previous Page     Next Page >>