I just saw it, thanks. I'm really surprised by the vitriol against those that are fighting for the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. My libertarian leanings support personal responsibility for your actions, and that those actions can't violate the guaranteed rights of others, which include the basic human rights of an unborn child. An unborn child at 28 weeks and 27 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds are no different biologically but have wildly different rights. If you look at the progression of life for human beings from conception to adulthood, I don't think it's appropriate to give them basic, inalienable human rights in steps. You're a human, you have human rights from day 1, day 1 being the formation of a separate human body with its own brain, feelings, DNA within the womb.
For those complaining about 'women's rights' they're just saying that the 'right' to avoid the repercussions of their decision has more value than a human life, and I can't get behind that kind of thinking. It's self-serving and immoral. About the only legitimate argument that I've heard is that allowing abortion would provide a safer process for those that would do it anyways.
New to this thread, but this one literally astonished me.
On the Libertarian view, rights and responsibilities always come as a package. The right to life is the right
not to be killed. Libertarians generally do not regard anyone as having the responsibility to take care of full moral persons except those persons themselves. Others can do so as a gift, if they choose, but no one can be forced to do so. I presume even Yeager thinks that no-one, even a parent, is responsible for the support of an adult person except that person. The only role the concept of "adult" plays here is the idea that an adult is a full person, total package of rights and responsibilities. One full person owes no responsibility of support to another full person simply by virtue of having caused them to exist.
What Yeager says above suggests that he takes the view that a zygote is in this "full" position. This is an uncommon position, but doesn't exclude abortion on the "rights and responsibilities" view. It means a mother must not kill any fertilized zygote she ends up with. It means she must choose the means of abortion carefully (no chopping up fetuses), but there's not a problem with anything that just pushes it out but doesn't directly destroy it. So suppose I just take an abortion pill, which simply mimics birth or a period, and which simply pushes the zygote/fetus out of my body. At this point it is welcome to continue to carry on living - by itself, of course - or it can try and find someone or something to continue to support it, which is, of course, its responsibility.
There are other somewhat problematic consequences to granting full personhood from conception; full personhood, after all includes the right to vote, the right to bear arms and the right to free speech. Being consistent with this position is possible but problematic; I know a fair number of three year olds who would love to own a gun. The results might not be beneficial to society, but, if Yeager is right, we can incarcerate the three year olds for the consequences of their actions because we can also hold them
responsible. They are full persons.
Or, one could, just possibly, reject the part of Yeager's view about
when full personhood is acquired and instead take the view that full personhood is achieved by becoming a fully conscious, fully rational individual with the capacity for self regulation and hence moral decision making. i.e. adulthood, usually in the late teens or early twenties (there's a neurological argument for 23-25). This is a slightly more common view, due to the somewhat less problematic consequences. This then leaves us with two further consistent positions on the pattern of the acquisition of rights:
1) Yeager is right that rights and responsibilities are a complete package and, as a consequence, until you achieve adulthood you have no rights. Then presumably, like other items hanging around the world you would therefore be simply property of whoever chooses to take you on and support you (the most consistent view would be that technically you would be literally owned by your mother for the first couple of years (pregnancy and breastfeeding), and then parents or guardians jointly (those providing) until about 16-25 years of age). This of course has the problematic consequence that you are now disposable as your mother/parents desire as well. Some find this a morally problematic view.
2) Yeager is wrong and your rights and responsibilities
are acquired bit by bit until you have them all at full adulthood, and it is a matter of discussion what this pattern would be. Generally, Libertarian views of this sort take rights to follow ones capacity for responsibility. The most sensible view, in my mind, is that you don't get the right to life until you are physically viable and not dependent on another person for your simple existence. You don't get a right to bear arms until you are sufficiently morally responsible to handle them properly. You don't get a right to vote until you have achieved full capacity for rationality. If you are an individual with only some of this capacity, then your rights and responsibilities are balanced appropriately.
But, you know, it might be fun to take Yeager's position and watch what happened. But I'm only a libertarian with a small "l" so I don't have to choose between these positions. What a relief!
