That is not a clear cut issue among anarchists and libertarians. Some argue that the fetus invaded the woman’s body without invitation and therefore it would not be a violation of the non aggression principle to abort it since the mother is just protecting her body against invasion. There are others who argue that the fetus was put into the woman’s body against its will and it is a violation of the NAP for a mother to abort the fetus because it is a person, having become so at conception. It swings both ways.
I don’t subscribe to the NAP, so that particular argument doesn’t hold sway with me
Are you in the very least suggesting that our current form of government is fundamentally for the universal destination of goods?
It doesn’t matter. We were talking about anarchists, not you.
Either way, the anarchists and libertarians have a position on abortion that I personally feel is not something I could defend.
So you could not defend the pro-life position of libertarians and anarchists?
What does “the universal destination of goods” mean?
“…those in need have the right to the private property of those not in need…”
- Who decides who are “in need”? Oh right, the State. How does that end up? The politically well-connected get the money and the power, and lobbying is even further encouraged.
- Wanting the stuff of someone who has more than you doesn’t justify stealing it, whether you do it directly or through a medium such as the State.
- This is your opinion. Can you cite Catholic authority literature or figures that opine this stuff? If you point to the anti-capitalist statements of the pope, remember that he’s also said that traditional Catholic Churches are being too strict on matters like abortion and gay marriage, and is thus a more reformist figure.
There has been a State war on poverty since I can remember. After many decades, the State is still losing the war.
Not fundamentally, but it can uphold it on principle. I’ve never heard of an anarcho-capitalist argument that can uphold the universal destination of goods on principle, however.
Libertarian socialism, left-anarchism, whatever you want to call it can at least uphold the universal destination of goods, and I would argue that it does so fundamentally.
They can’t decide whether to permit it or prevent it. A baby is not an invasive virus. It’s a human life. Whether the baby was put there against the mother’s will or not, it’s a human life. And we are not in a position to play God because she doesn’t want to bring a life in the world.
Arguments don’t distribute goods. Life does. And so far, the state is doing a miserable job of life.
Since 1965. Lyndon B. Johnson implemented the war on poverty. After 1968, the reduction of poverty stagnated, and stayed at 12-15% up until 2012 (where the graph ends).
Catechism paragraphs 2401-2406.
Of course they can. Some have decided for it and other against it. It’s the same among all parties. Nobody is in agreement on the abortion issue.
Are you confusing me for a statist? Read my earlier posts.
I guess I’ll stay Protestant then.
You can’t be a Catholic and be a-ok with abortion. Or at the very least you shouldn’t be.
I think the point is that being a left-libertarian doesn’t preclude being pro-life. I was a pro-life anarchist long before I was a Catholic; the same arguments that apply to the defense of adult life can apply to the child.
Dorothy Day was certainly pro-life.
But how do you ensure that abortion doesn’t happen within the framework of an anarchist type society? I don’t think you can be pro-life as well as an anarchist. Because the two conflict on that issue.
I’m not okay with abortion at all.