Is "pro-choice" a libertarian position ?

With a small "L" ? Some caller on C-SPAN this AM said the Democratic Party was the pro-abortion party and the Repubs were the anti-abortion party. No one mentioned it further, but I have thought of the Democratic Party as the party of "choice". And "choice" in the matter of whether or not to bring a baby into this world is the most "libertarian" position that one can take. It is more libertarian than the positions on guns, sex, or drugs. In fact, many Democrats are "pro-choice" on these issues also. For example, if you want to do drugs that might harm your health, you have the freedom to do that, so long as you don't harm anyone else in the process. I'm thinking we are more "libertarian" than we care to admit. However, this is not the same as the "Libertarian" Party. Right?

I think the libertarian attitude on social issues is more or less in line with the Democratic Party position. Where we find huge disagreement is in the area of fiscal matters.

I hear some are anti-choice, but most I've heard from say it's another area the government shouldn't get involved in. Guns & drugs, too.

Yeah, we do share some of the libertarian viewpoints. They hate PATRIOT and other government spying, although not always for the same reasons. Lots of times we ally with them on civil liberties and similar issues.

The primary difference is that they believe in little or no government interference in most things. We believe that government is quite useful in many things. We really go head to head with them when it comes to stuff like regulation. They abhor stuff like OSHA and the EPA. They're not big on unemployment insurance, social security, or need it be said, any form of welfare.

...I believe most are not. As someone said, they're all over the place on this issue.

I don't see how libertarians can square their political affiliation with not being pro-choice.

Who support the War on Drugs, especially the more rabid ones, like Diane Feinstein, who are also vocally and adamantly pro-choice.

There is a logical disconnect there saying that it's ok to terminate a pregnancy, dealing with an individual life, but, by god, smoke a joint and your ass is going to jail.

The same applies for pro-choice Republicans as well.

Every libertarian I know is for laws against murder. Some of these libertarians (probably a minority of these) see the fetus as a being deserving of human rights and see abortion as murder or as something akin to murder.

Please keep in mind that libertarians do not believe in no government regulation just less of it where feasible. Most libertarians would agree that definition of basic human rights must remain a government matter.

The controversial issue for libertarians, as well as the rest of us, is at what point in time the fetus starts to deserve the right not to be battered with sharp objects or burning liquids (absent special circumstances). Most states set this time at the time of "viability." Some DUers would set this time as natural birth (or just a little prior to that). Libertarians are probably all over the map on this issue.

I think there's a major "l"ibertarian theme in the Democratic party. But at the 'core values' level (as opposed to how our reps sometimes act), we are against "corporate libertarianism".

Were the title 'pro-life' not already claimed by the anti-abortion movement, the Democrats could have been considered a "pro-life" party in the sense that they are anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-pollution, pro-diversity, anti-racism. What motivates me, and I believe most of our party, is certainly the idea that each individual person, each life is to be valued, cared for, and respected.

Democrats are definitely "pro-people".

I ran into them at the Marijuana Harvest Festival event that I went to last weekend. They believe very much in civil liberties just as I do. They seem to think that consumers, the media, other businesses, and other private organizations can eliminate the need for governmental regulation of business and governmental social programs. What they fail to realize is that most government regulations and programs have been reactionary for a real reason. Those reasons are usually stronger than ever in the present day than even when they were made.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#womerigh
QUOTE
Women`s Rights and Abortion

We hold that individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women, such as protective labor laws and marriage or divorce laws which deny the full rights of men and women. We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice and private property or to widen tyranny through reverse discrimination.

Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.

We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.

It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements, and/or home births.
UNQUOTE

Libertarians for Life is probably the most vocal anti-abortion group that adheres to libertarian prinicples and outlook.

But they are certainly not the be-all, end-all, by any means.

However, this is not the same as the "Libertarian" Party. Right?

Quite correct.

A libertarian position is about the right to decide for yourself.

are you referring to the fetus or the pregnant woman with this word?

how can a fetus decide

sometimes we make the decision for the child based on her best interests

sometimes we use an adult "next friend" as a surrogate decisionmaker

These kinds of practices happen in custody battles, medical care decisions, tort cases, juvenile criminal cases and any other legal settings involving a child. The ability to express an opinion is not generally a pre-requisite to be being entitled to human rights. If you can't express your preference, then the law makes your decisions based on your best interests and preferences as they can best be guessed at. Sometimes these best interests decisions override the wishes of people who can express preferences (eg, the parents of an infant child).

The question is at what point in time the foregoing type decisionmaking begins to apply to fetuses.

Now to rephrase my question: when you say decide for "yourself" are you referring to expressed preferences of the pregnant woman or best interests of the fetus?

... but my view on abortion is certainly libertarian to an extent. I don't feel it's the government's job to dictate to a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. In fact, I don't even think that I, as a man, should be dictating it to a woman.

I wouldn't consider myself to be pro-abortion any more than a pro-lifer considers him/herself to be pro-orphanage (I hope). I feel that government's involvement in the abortion matter should be in presenting alternatives to abortion, not in trying to ban it. That's the problem, as far as I can see: pro-lifers are absolutist in their views--- it's "Have the baby or don't have sex." It's not, "Here are working alternatives." I don't think anybody is keen to abort fetuses. But the conservatives in particular are unwilling to accept any compromise on the matter. You can't have abortions, you can't teach safe sex, you can't rework the adoption system. It seems that the conservatives want to keep people ignorant in order to maintain their absolutist stance.

But I digress. My stance is libertarian to an extent. So is my stance on gay marriage and gay rights. So is my stance on drugs.

All kinds of choices. One of the most basic principles is that we shouldn't have the right to tell other people how to live their lives as long as they're holding up their end of the social contract.

(and there very much is a difference between small-ell and cap-ell flavors, just as there is between communists and Communists (and much the same sort of difference, too, strangely))