Monday, January 31, 2011

"Pro-life" people alienate me

I get really tired of running into "pro-life" people who refuse to discuss anything relating to liberty until the "question" of abortion is resolved the way they want it.

To balk at any move toward liberty simply because we can't agree on abortion is insane. Let's get rid of all the liberty-crushing counterfeit "laws" first, and then we can work out the details on abortion.

The "pro-lifers" won't even discuss anything without the ridiculous insistence that everything, all good and all evil, flows from- and revolves around- the issue of abortion.

I am against abortion, especially as a form of birth control, but am also against government getting involved. If that's the way the "pro-lifers" want it they might just make me change sides. They may just make me decide I must be for abortion if the alternative is to be on the same side, even philosophically, as people who are so ignorant and bullheaded.

OK, so I don't really base my principles on other people, but it really is very tiresome. Work with me to get The State out of all areas of our lives and then we can settle the rest. OK?


  1. It sure seems like Pro-life people are one issue voters. There's so many facets of the abortion debate that I can't say what I totally feel about it right now.

    Probably the biggest factor is that I don't feel that government should be the ones deciding where life starts and stops. If they get to decide that, there's no reason why they can't declare your loved one is "dead" and thus you must stop giving them hospital care or you can't give Do Not Resussicate orders.

    Probably the best article I've seen so-far is Surly Curmudgeon's one (link).

  2. Kent,

    I'm a Catholic voluntaryist/ancap. (there are actually a bunch of us, believe it or not. I just "converted" another to anarchism not too long ago.) I believe that all abortion is infanticide, but I agree that trying to use the State to get rid of it is the wrong way to go about it. The State isn't a morally valid tool to accomplish any goal. I spent a bit of time trying to convince the folks over at "Anarchy In Your Head" that Catholic anarchists are not their enemies. I hope you realize it, too.

  3. Vagabond- As long as you only rely on education to get your point across I wouldn't count you as an enemy (even if I find your implied definition of "infant" a little loose).

    It's the insistence on using "laws" to set an "abortion policy", and the refusal to work on anything until everyone agrees on abortion (which will NEVER, EVER happen), that disgusts me.

  4. Kent,

    Like Vagabond, I am a Catholic ancap.

    I'm willing to talk about freedom for hours (and do!).

    I do not urge the use of force to stop abortion, but - otoh - I think that doing so is a morally legitimate stance. I urge the use of force to stop, say, slavery, or rape, as those are initiations of force, and defensive force is morally legitimate.

    Depending on the bounds that you draw around "people" (white men? all whites? all men? all men and women? all men, women, and unborn children after 8 months of gestation?), the use of force to defend against aggression can be made legitimate in different cases.

    If party A thinks that a black slave B is a person, and person C thinks that the slave is just property, is it morally legitimate for A to use force to stop C from whipping B?

  5. Yes, A could use force to stop C from whipping B. B is a person; a fertilized human egg is not. Human cells do not a person make. Yes, that means reality is messy and there may not be a perfect solution, but not all problems have a solution.