Talk:Libertarian perspectives on abortion

Final paragraph re: dividing libertarians

I reworded the final paragraph which used to state:

While the abortion issue fiercely divides the American mainstream, pro-life and pro-choice libertarians are not so vehemently separated. Like anarchists and minarchists, they have much more in common than they have dividing them.

This is POV, so the paragraph was reworded more neutrally. Some libertarians do view the issue as an absolute, fundamental dividing line between "true" libertarians and others, regardless of side (pro- or anti-abortion rights). - Korpios 18:34, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Implicit-"all" libertarians against gov't funding?

I changed:

Libertarians are agreed on the latter question, at least, believing that government should not fund personal activity (especially activity of such a controversial nature) . . .

to now begin with "The vast majority of".

My reasoning? IMHO, it is possible (although wildly unpopular, granted) to argue that government funding of abortion can fall under minarchist libertarian principles. Some libertarians would argue for government maintenance of a federal highway system, or environmental regulations, on the grounds that these are "special cases" (freedom to move from Point A to Point B for the former, and Tragedy of the Commons effects of pollutions for the latter); I would argue that funding birth control and abortion can very much be viewed through a libertarian lens of avoiding excessive population. Furthermore, I do not assume a positive "right" to have a child, especially since children (unlike, say, a pet) are destined to become full citizens and therefore potentially strain minarchist systems such as law enforcement.

I feel "vast majority" was the correct NPOV way to put this in the article, since I'm under no illusion that most libertarians would agree with me here.

- Korpios 18:53, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, thoughtful edit. I think I agree. I think we'd be hard-pressed to find a particular libertarian who feels this way (unless you are submitting yourself as an example?), but it is theoretically possible. Thanks for the change, and the detailed explanation. Jdavidb 14:52, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I am an example of one. As I said, I'm well aware that this isn't a popular stance among libertarians. ;) - Korpios 15:46, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave.

Is this part of the quote or the actual article? If it is part of the article, it is POV....

My bad. It's part of the quote[1]. I'll fix it now. Dave (talk)

Balance the "Pro Abortion" POV

Families and Children National Libertarian Party platform

Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship.

For the record, I am "pro abortion" but the argument that a fetus is in its mother's womb because of some "permission" seems like the wrong approach. Children do not live in their parents' house, or live off the fruits of their parents' labor because of permission that must be explicitly granted. Children exist because of a choice made by the parents exercising their right to procreate. Libertarians recognize that with the right to have children comes the responsibility to care for them, as stated in the quoted part of the official National Libertarian Party platform. Children do not need to seek permission from their parents to get from them those things which a child needs to continue to live. Fulfilling obligations freely chosen (such as caring for a child) can in no way be said to "enslave" someone.

The argument that "a fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission" evokes images of a landlord and an eviction. If that fetus is a child, then the parent has the obligation to care for the child until another willing guardian is found. The argument for or against abortion must hinge on that single question: at what point between conception and adulthood does a collection of cells become a human being with its own inalienable right to life?

The answer to the question of when human life begins is a philosophical or religious question, not a political one. Intelligent, well-meaning people will disagree about abortion for as long as that question is in dispute, even if their politics are identical.

I will consider how to write this up for the article page - and if something along these lines should be there.

There are a lot of good points here. You're welcome to add arguments from the other side, especially with quotations. You should leave the "Abortion Is Pro Life" quote even though you disagree with it (we should show arguments from both sides), but you could probably shorten it without losing much. I'll be happy to work with you on making this more neutral. Dave (talk) June 28, 2005 12:53 (UTC)

I made some improvements. there's more to do, though. Dave (talk) June 29, 2005 03:25 (UTC)

I made some more improvements, and I'm satisfied with the NPOV. Since this issue interests you, you may want to add more, though. Enjoy:-) Dave (talk) July 1, 2005 14:58 (UTC)

U.S. Libertarian Party position

This section states:

It holds that abortion should be legal but neither state-funded or required because "the government should be kept out of the question".

Nowhere it the cited link to the platform is it stated that the USLP holds that abortion should be legal; the lack of a definite statement saying "abortion should be legal" is actually quite conspicuous in its absence.

The statement is presumably an inference from the claim that "the government should be kept out of the question," but the position is (perhaps intentionally?) vague on whether that means anything more than the state not funding or mandating abortions.

In addition, I'm no authority, but I believe that:

In this, its position is quite similar to that of another institution claiming the support of natural law: the Catholic Church, which allows abortions for medical reasons and sanctions misdeeds only through excommunication

is likely a misleading description of Church policy. --Jfpbookworm 18:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You're correct about the Church's view on this matter. See 2270 of the Catechism [2]. Roy Harmon 07:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Page is Wrong About Catholic Church's teachings

Say what you will about the Catholic Church as an "institution," but She does not support abortion for "medical reasons." The Catholic Church is against abortion. In case you didn't notice the period, I repeat, PERIOD.

While She does recognize that a mother who finds herself in an unplanned or medically difficult pregnancy has varying levels of diminished capacity to be morally culpable for the abortion (boyfriend/husband/family pressure, doctors' unwillingness to follow the Hipocratic oath), the fact remains that the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is a grave sin, even if done for "medical reasons." By the way, my personal response to those who use the excuse of medical necessity to exonerate abortion comes down to two words: second opinion. Mattsteady 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What Other Libertarian movements have abortion controversies?

Obviously wikipedia has chosen to deal with [[libertarianism] the way it does. The question is, are there other libertarian movements - socialist, left, whatever - that have issues or are they all just pro-choice? If so, create a section. If there is controversy, more reason to do so. I have higher priorities than correct the article besides what I added about the pro-choice libertarian group in the past. But I would note that the current article gives the impression American pro-property or whatever you want to call the libertarians are more pro-life than they are. Carol Moore 03:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Pro-abortion is "predominant" libertarian viewpoint?

I edited the lead (since reverted) to, I believe, more impartially express the cited reference. I don't know Ruwart's personal opinion on the matter, but think the lead is extracting from the reference something that isn't quite there. After describing the libertarian anti-abortion stance, the reference says, "the predominant 'pro-choice' viewpoint, as expressed in the current version of the Libertarian Party platform, is backed by principled arguments as well..."^[3] That wording is ambiguous: the text only refers to the "predominant pro-choice viewpoint" -- "predominant" is either modifying "pro-choice" or it's modifying "viewpoint" (and is poorly written), but it's impossible to tell which from the text. If it modifies "pro-choice", that would be saying that it is the predominant viewpoint within the pro-choice camp.

Regardless, this is all secondary to a more important point: Why should this group or individual be considered a good barometer for libertarians in general? Ruwart may be a good source for the viewpoints of the Libertarian Party, but is not necessarily so for 'libertarians'. Therefore, I think my change to make it clear that pro-abortion is the Libertarian Party platform, without specifying either way about the majority or "predominant" viewpoint among libertarians in general, is more accurate. The title of this article, after all, is not "Libertarian Party perspectives..."

Both the Republican Liberty Caucus and the Cato Institute, which is unaffiliated with the LP or any other political party, are intentionally neutral on abortion because of its contentiousness. Most "small-L" libertarians are disaffected conservatives who have defected from the Republican Party, or conversely, vote Republican out of expediency.^{[4][5][6][7][8]} Two of the most prominent LP candidates, Bob Barr and Ron Paul, were first Republicans themselves—and both strongly anti-abortion. Seems especially relevant since Barr beat out (the above quoted) Ruwart for the most recent LP nomination. Mark Sanford, Republican and self-professed libertarian,^[9] is anti-abortion. A May 2009 Gallup Poll showed 51% of Americans were "pro-life", while 42% were "pro-choice".^[10] All of these things make it hard for me to believe that libertarians are pro-abortion by any sizable majority. Strikehold (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What matters is what the sources say, not your own views (WP:SOAPBOX), including your soap-boxing with the word "pro-abortion." This statement is clearly attributed to Ruwart as her opinion, and I believe is an accurate rendition of her full statement which is:

The predominant 'pro-choice' viewpoint, as expressed in the current version of the Libertarian Party platform, is backed by principled arguments as well. Libertarians believe that no one should be enslaved to support another, including a pregnant woman 'enslaved' to carry a fetus she does not want. A woman's body is her property, to do with as she wishes.

It doesn't matter if it is unclear what "predominant" is modifying or if people interpret it differently. (See Wikipedia:Truth.) The statement is in full compliance with Wikipedia:policy.

If it is unclear to you what she refers to that can be remedied by finding a more explict source from her. Or you can find some other credible WP:RS source to come up with some other viewpoint on the topic, assuming it refers to explicitly to libertarians and abortion. Most of the ones you listed above did not. Only one mentioned abortion specifically in relation to libertarianism, and that one stated that the Democratic candidate was more for getting the govt out of abortion (and inferred as being more libertarian) than the losing republican." CarolMooreDC (talk)

I'm "soapboxing" by trying to increase the neutrality and accuracy of the article? You should assume good faith instead of negatively characterizing someone else's comments. "Pro-choice" and "pro-life" are politically-charged terms for what is quite simply either pro-abortion rights or anti-abortion rights views. No reasonable person is against either "life" or "choice", so it's needlessly polemical to use those terms.

Secondly, it is not a faithful paraphrase due to the ambiguity of the quote if you look at it in its full context, instead of just the part you quote above. In context, it is less clear-cut:

In general, libertarians are split into two camps, both believing that their view best expresses the non-aggression principle.
The group which identifies with the 'pro-life' viewpoint feels that a couple engaging in sexual relations should be responsible for the results of their actions. If a child is conceived who cannot fend for himself, the parents are responsible for bringing him into the world and caring for him until he can. Abortion is viewed as murder of an innocent, much as you describe.
The predominant 'pro-choice' viewpoint, as expressed in the current version of the Libertarian Party platform, is backed by principled arguments as well...

Wikipedia:Truth, which you cite, is an essay that has not attained any status of consensus within the community, and with good reason. It is silly to say we should not strive for factuality, although I fail to see how that's relevant to this discussion either way. The policies WP:OR and WP:V clearly prohibit synthesis.

The burden is not on me to disprove anything Ruwart believes or espouses. The burden is on someone who wants to include an extraction of her opinions.

Lastly, I was not attempting to provide sources to say "most libertarians are against abortion", I was making the case that in such a contentious issue, where even the two primary political parties are divided on the issue, it is highly doubtful that one can make the claim that libertarians predominantly support the legal status of abortion. Libertarians are not a single-issue group, so it is unlikely that they heavily side either way on an issue that divides the American population essentially down the middle. It is fair to say that libertarians favor maximizing individual choice and minimizing government interference, but an opinion on abortion would be governed by whether they believe that a fetus at any stage is a human life. Again, since the opinion on that cuts down the middle, it is unlikely they are heavily in favor of abortion rights. Strikehold (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I decided the best thing to do is to take my own advice and look for more sources showing that libertarians a predominantly pro-choice and inserting in article. So adding several new WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Ayn Rand was pro-choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.243.185 (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian Party position vs. Republican candidates

I've again removed the text which implied a disconnect between Ron and Rand Paul and the official position of the Libertarian Party. Neither is a politician in that party, and as such the disconnect needn't be mentioned. The disconnect is already implied between the Libertarian pro-choice perspective, but not the party. Dif: [11]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Technically Ron Paul is a libertarian and Barr was the 2008 Prez candidate, so I think including them with WP:RS ok. Rand Paul definitely would need a ref since he seems to be less libertarian than Republican. However, I'm not going to go looking for the ref, so it would be up to someone else to put in the ref'd info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, this has nothing to do with them being libertarian. It has to do with them not being parts of the Libertarian Party. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your point. The article is about libertarians in general, not the LP only. And even if it was, Paul and Barr both were LP candidates so that would be relevant. If WP:RS do call Rand Paul a libertarian on the vast majority of issues, that also would be relevant.)

I think it is helpful to briefly explain their views (including what level of govt they want to outlaw abortion under what circumstances) once WP:RS are found. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is that an IP kept adding that both Pauls were pro-life, "despite the official Libertarian Party position", which is a non-sequitur. That's why I pasted this post, because I reverted twice, which I don't usually do. [12] [13]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I got that on first reading but got confused after your second reply. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Globalize tag

If there are other libertarianisms that have views on abortion, please supply info. CarolMooreDC 06:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Rothbard is evictionist

I believe Rothabard's position is evictionist. "What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body." -Rothbard, For A New Liberty

Both Rothbard and Block are evictionists, and evictionism should have a subsection. Dude6935 (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Your personal views are WP:Original research. Please read the policy. I don't see any refs calling Rothbard's view "evictionism." All I see is one use by Block. Not enough for a section. I am reverting all your edits based on questionable premises. Please do not revert until you have made a case for them according to wikipedia policy and not your personal views. See the policy: WP:Edit warring. CarolMooreDC 19:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't call Rothbard's views evictionist in my edits. Only here on the talk. His own words are support for Blocks positions, and Block cites Rothbard in the source material. There are also numerous papers for and agianst evictionism. I can reference many such sources if needed. There is no need to revert without discussion. Dude6935 (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

OK the whole wikipedia approach after much internal wrangling is to contrast support for and opposition to legal abortion (see relevant links), which is actually the way libertarians look at it. So I updated and restructured it that way. Feel free to have a paragraph on evictionism with your refs from whoever uses the phrase so it is not original research. But this is the structure article should have. CarolMooreDC 19:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly which relevant links are you referring to? And no, libertarians hold distinct moral and legal beliefs. That is actually the whole point of libertarianism, not to impose beliefs on others through force. Dude6935 (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

While I oppose the article's changes in structure, I have connected Rothbard and Block with an new source. Dude6935 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources. Libertarians for Life can be quoted on their own views as they are here. But their views on other parties, like Murray Rothbard, are not acceptable unless they publish a piece by someone who is identified by WP:Reliable sources as an expert in their field, which I do not believe can be proved about John Walker. I note that searching Rothbard in Block's paper he mentions him a few times, and it would be proper to quote him if he said something like "I building on such and such ideas from Rothbard." If he just uses Rothbard as a ref, then it probably would be WP:Original research to try to interpret what he got from Rothbard.

If you don't understand policy, we can have a third party come and explain it. CarolMooreDC 00:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How about Stephan Kinsella: "A healthy number of libertarians believe the following. First, the fetus does have rights--at least, a late-term fetus. However, the fetus is a trespasser on the woman's body, thus it can be evicted at any time (the is the view of Walter Block and Murray Rothbard--evictionism)."? I think that qualifies as an expert. https://www.facebook.com/DoubleXMag/posts/10151035512854702 Dude6935 (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"Norman Stephan Kinsella (/kɪnˈsɛlə/; born 1965) is an American intellectual property lawyer and libertarian legal theorist. His works are primarily published on his blog and websites associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute and anarcho-capitalist organizations." He is an expert. Dude6935 (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am taking down the John Walker ref. I didn't realize he was part of libertarians for life when I posted it. Dude6935 (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kinsella on Facebook is not WP:RS either. Please remove. Do I really have to go to WP:Reliable sources noticeboard to prove this point to you which is abundantly verified on WP:RS policy page?? Please read all of it, not just the part you think applies to my edits. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 17:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So Kinsella is not an expert, but your group is? They are both self-published, but in Kinsella's case he has an established record of lectures and published books. Can pro-choice libertarians say that? If you want to go to a noticeboard, please feel free. I think the pro-choice libertarian source is far less reliable than this one. Dude6935 (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Having since re-read the comments at WP:COIN and noticed the one about it would be better to summarize the comments, I did so very briefly in an NPOV way with note in the edit summary: The Pro-Choice Libertarians group lists some of the reasons libertarians may oppose government involvement in the abortion issue based on various views of morality, rights of the mother and the fetus, the proper role of government.[23] Maybe that was your original point; if so you never made it clearly. Saying the group exists and summarizing it's views certain is well within Wikipedia boundaries. I'm also going to make a Pro-Choice Libs in the News page for the various news stories about the group over the years. "Support for legal abortion" being a majority in the movement, it has not been necessary to promote the views as much except when attacked within specific organizations. I'm not going to promote there being an article on Wikipedia. Frankly I've seen groups with far more refs than Libertarians for Life get the boot and maybe putting that article through AfD would be the best thing and then we could decide if either group should be mentioned at all, IF you objection is mentioning the pro-choice group at all.

So do you have a problem with that before I go to WP:RSN about Kinsella. CarolMooreDC 19:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that that edit was a needed improvement. It was not my original point, but the change did address more than one of my minor points. It now reads like it isn't explicitly stating the opinions of others. It reads more like the group's opinion, as it should. Dude6935 (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't the part on Rothbard be re-written with his own writings as references. Then the Kinella ref would not be needed at all. He calls the fetus a parasite just like Block does and says it can be ejected (rather than evicted). Thoughts? Dude6935 (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I missed this comment before posting this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Facebook_entry_on_abortion_issue.

Anyway, if you can find that Block says "Rothbard says so and so" and then says something like "which is what I mean or similar to what I say when I say such and such" then it's ok. But for YOU to make that connection is WP:Original Research. If you quote Rothbard saying "the fetus is a parasite and it can be ejected" (or whatever) and then the next paragraph is Block making his point, then you legitimately can let the reader draw her own conclusions, which may or may not be same as yours. CarolMooreDC 01:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Facebook cannot be used as a reliable source here. Norman Stephan Kinsella must be quoted from a reliable source or not quoted at all. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking something like: "Dr. Walter Block, professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, defends the right of a mother to "evict" an unwanted fetus on the same propertarian basis as Rothbard, but adds that the mother does not have a right to kill the fetus "if technology permits her not to do so". Block argues that life begins from conception, and that the fetus (as a human) is protected against aggression. Block asserts that this compromise, "evictionism", is the only justifiable position and is a true alternative to the standard choice between "pro-life" and "pro-choice".

Let me know what you think. I have reviewed both "The Ethics of Liberty" and "Compromising the Uncompromisable" while writing this, so most statements have been 100% verified rather than stated off the cuff. I can add quotes and edit as needed. The (a)(b)(c) stuff currently in the article doesn't read easily to me. And propertarian here just mean property based. But Rothbard is also called popertarian (with a ref) in Propertarianism.

BTW, I only heard about evictionism a couple of weeks ago. I don't think I am gung-ho evictionist. I just think it is a very important philosophical theory which lends more consistency to libertarianism. Anyway, is think evictionism really is a compromise, and I lean in it's direction. Dude6935 (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please show your sources. Your proposed text is nothing until its sources can be seen. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, "Ethics of Liberty" and "Compromising the Uncompromisable"

http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude6935 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If YOU are the one who says "on the same propertarian basis as Rothbard," it is WP:Original research. If you say Block does it on propertarian basis and that he quotes or cites Rothbard's view of propertarianism (which he may well do) or whatever, then you are just describing facts, though some still might object you are trying to make your own argument and not just describe Block's position. I think Block himself is strong enough to make any point, without referring to Rothbard, and that if there is some quote from Rothbard using similar language, just use it in the Rothbard section. It's just a matter of learning how to do things in a Wikipedian encyclopedic manner. CarolMooreDC 03:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are Kinsella, Block, and Whitehead citing Rothbard view on a mother's private property rights and on a fetus' non-right to trespass as the basis for eviction. See the section on abortion page 945. http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-etal_spam_whittier-2006.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude6935 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's what the full text in question reads:

Does not, however, the mother have a private property right in her own body? According to Rothbard, she does. However, he says:

Let us concede, for purposes of the discussion, that fetuses are human beings-or, more broadly, potential human beings-and are therefore entitled to full human rights. But what humans, we may ask, have the right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host? Clearly no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either. 98/

The principal libertarian theory in favor of the right to abortion, far from resting on a premise of privacy, is based on this insight. Yes, the fetus is an alive human being, but members of this category simply have no right of trespass on private property, and the private property in question belongs to the mother. Thus, the woman who no longer wishes to "house" the fetus within her body is under no legal 99/ obligation to do so. She may evict 100/ this interloper from her "premises." She must do so in the gentlest manner possible, for the trespasser in this case is certainly not guilty of mens rea.

All they are saying is that Rothbard says even if fetuses are human they have no right to trespass. And Kinsella, Block, and Whitehead's conclusions from that. They are not saying Rothbard's an evictionist.

And do not forget the oft made counter argument - in fact perhaps made by Rothbard himself - that may be in one of the sources you already provided that the mother has no legal duty to take care of the fetus when born or to give it to someone else. Obviously libertarians may disagree on that, but just pointing out that argument also exists. In any case, why the "argument from authority" (Rothbard). If this is what Kinsella, Block, and Whitehead believe, just say it. CarolMooreDC 21:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will take another shot at it:

Dr. Walter Block, professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and fellow libertarian contributers, defend the right of a mother to "evict" an unwanted fetus on the libertarian private property basis(ref1), but add that the mother does not have a right to kill (that is, to abort (ref1)) the fetus "if technology permits her not to do so", so long as any willing third party exists to adopt it.(ref2) Block supports his position by arguing that "the fetus is an alive human being from day one onward, with all the rights pertaining to any other member of the species."(ref2) Block maintains that this compromise, "evictionism", is a true alternative to the standard "pro-life" and "pro-choice" positions and that it is the only justifiable abortion position.(ref2)

• Ref1 is Kinsella, Block, and Whitehead
• Ref2 is Block and Whitehead

• "the mother has no legal duty to take care of the fetus when born". Block agrees, not really a counter.
• "or to give it to someone else". Block disagrees on this and argues against.
• I am starting to agree about the non-necessity of referencing Rothbard since probably half of the other paragraphs could reference him too.
• I believe this is a simple statement of verifiable facts, and I believe this version conveys more information, more clearly, and probably in fewer words than the current text. Dude6935 (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The main problem I see (without bothering to check whether statements actually come from each source, since I assume it's close enough) is that Block and Whitehead write the main longer paper Ref1, so would think Whitehead should be identified there. It's confusing to say "other contributors" but then keep saying Block this and Block that for rest of paragraph. For Ref2, did they all write the whole piece, or did Block or he and Whitehead only write abortion section? If that's made explicit in original source, would be relevant. CarolMooreDC 22:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Kinsella descents with a more pro-life position a bit later in the abortion section. So I see no reason to site the paper to which he contributes. Every statement can be referenced to the original Block-Whitehead paper and I included page refs.

I added Whitehead, but the intro is soo long now.

Dr. Walter Block, professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and Roy whitehead Associate Professor of Business Law, University of Central Arkansas, defend the right of a mother to "evict" an unwanted fetus on the libertarian private property basis(ref page 44), but add that the mother does not have a right to kill (that is, to abort (ref page 21)) the fetus "if technology permits her not to do so", so long as any willing third party exists to adopt it.(ref page 44,45) Block and Whitehead support their position by arguing that "the fetus is an alive human being from day one onward, with all the rights pertaining to any other member of the species."(ref page 17) They maintain that this compromise, "evictionism", is a true alternative to the standard "pro-life" and "pro-choice" positions and that it is the only justifiable abortion position.(ref page 44)

Thoughts? Dude6935 (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Confusion cleared up. Eventually I might check if it's an accurate reflection, when I'm in a finicky mood. But that might be months from now. It sounds like more detailed version of last version which I never checked either. :-) See, isn't collaboration fun?? CarolMooreDC 00:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Harry Browne's non-postion on abortion.

Harry Brown expresses no opinion on abortion itself in the cited source. He states only his opinion on government. This opinion should be under "Role of government in abortion" or the like. Then it could be expanded with similar views like Ron Paul's position to have it decided at the state level, or lower. Dude6935 (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"The only issue in libertarianism is whether the government should be involved - based on whatever philosophy one might have." This is not true. For example, Ron Paul opposes abortion, but believe that states have the right to ban it (or not) free from federal interference. Dude6935 (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually Paul's position is it is a life FROM conception so he would LIKE to see all the states ban it but realizes that may not be possible. And some right to lifers want it banned; some think the states should decide. That's what article should reflect. CarolMooreDC 19:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, there is debate on the morality of abortion, and there is the separate question of what the legality of abortion should be. Your edits mush all that together. If you want to address only the legal question of abortion, the article needs to be re-titled or moved to an article with an appropriate title. Dude6935 (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Legality is the main issue in libertarianism - and in wikipedia. Support for the legalization of abortion (article title) or Opposition to legal abortion (article title) are the retitled names of the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" articles after much community discussion.

The various arguments which people must for or against legality of some or all abortion are thus logically organized under those concepts. People come up with all sorts of reasons for their views, some questionable. For example, some people are against it because they want their race or religion to survive or triumph demographically; others are for it because they think it's a blessed religious sacrament for liberation of a soul from an unwanted body. And some of these people might call themselves libertarians. If WP:RS covered those views, they'd be eligible for inclusion in this article.

But the main way to organize these for or against views is - do they want it mostly or totally legal or illegal. I'm going to get some outside opinions on this and on the eligibility of the Pro-Choice Libertarians material. As I said above, advocacy groups can be quoted talking about their own views and views of supporters, but not those of other people or groups, unless the author is a noted expert on a subject. (So I don't feel I have a conflict of interest quoting the views of a group whose web page I manage; not sure, so asking opinion on that elsewhere.) CarolMooreDC 05:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is an unannounced conflict of interest here. This should rule out making any controversial edits as per WP:AVOIDCOI, especially without full disclosure and discussion before edits are made. I welcome other opinions on this issue. Dude6935 (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

First, I see that you found out I was the contact for Pro-Choice libertarians in an email to the group asking about Block. I thought it was a wikipedia forwarded email.

Second, until you raised the issue it didn't even occur to me that my adding the quote from Pro-Choice Libertarians which I helped found and whose web page I still do was a conflict of interest. I did it 4 or 5 years ago before I was very aware of COI issues and hadn't thought about it since til you brought up the issue. I am sure that NPOV editors will find that adding that one paragraph is not WP:Undue. And I certainly am not promoting the group beyond that.

Third, having a position is not a conflict of interest unless you engage in behaviors that are against policy, like: engaging in original research, trying to use NON-WP:RS sources in an article, being uncivil, being a sock puppet, etc. You do seem to be interested in this view that evicted viable fetuses should be adopted by others but that shouldn't bar you from editing if it does not marr your editorial objectivity. (I personally don't care if those views are in the article, as long as they reflect what a reliable source actually said.)

At this point it seems we are having a civil discussion and I am explaining what I think are the policy issues are and trying to understand views. I do not understand your opposition to the renamed sections per the above suggested per the Wikipedia dichotomy. Maybe there is a problem with that - I just am not sure what your point is. Obviously there is a spectrum of views. Gary Johnson mostly is pro-choice except for viable fetuses (what his definition of that is is not one I've found yet from a reliable source). And Ron Paul per the current article seems to be personally for making it illegal but would let the states decide. (Which I think needs further clarification but I haven't bothered to get the right sourced info on his current views.) I don't think there's anyone who takes such a middle ground position they are equally for and against legality, but I could be wrong. So I think further article discussion, not excessive COI discussion, is what is needed here. CarolMooreDC 07:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If further discussion is required on the COI subject, we should start a new thread. I will just quote from my link above, with my emphasis.

"Editors who may have a conflict of interest may nevertheless add material that accords with the Photographs and media files or Subject and culture sector professionals sections below, and are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, such as: Removing spam and reverting vandalism. Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy. Fixing spelling and grammar errors. Reverting or removing their own COI edits. Cleaning up your own mess is allowed and encouraged. Making edits that have been agreed to on the talk page. Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them. If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit. Such edits should be discussed on the article's talk page." I will return the article structure to the way it was before your controversial, unilateral edit. If agreement is forthcoming on your proposed structure change, we should restore it. If you believe my edit that preceded yours is faulty, we can revert back further and discuss that as well. I believe this course of action can resolve this problem without need for any escalation. Dude6935 (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You haven't proved there is a real conflict of interest. If you read: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#What_is_a_conflict_of_interest.3F you'll see I do not fall into any of those categories. I'm not a paid professional. I made one relevant edit re: Pro-Choice Lib group years ago which I'm quite sure no one has contested since. If there's a Pro-life group with a web page it's certainly relevant there's a pro-choice one. There was a real long RfC on Conflict of Interest recently and people were not happy about POVs being labeled COIs.

On the other hand it is quite clear that you do have a such a strong POV you are not interested in complying with WP:Reliable sources in order to push your own POV, ie in your entering both the Walker and now the Stephen Kinsella "references." Kinsella's entry is just a self-published commentary. And he's not a noted authority on the subject which would make it useable. In fact someone put a tag on his article questioning his notability. Do I really have to go to the Reliable sources noticeboard with these refs so that other editors can make this policy clear to you? It's having such a strong POV you ignore policy that is more likely to be seen as a WP:COI under Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#What_is_a_conflict_of_interest.3F CarolMooreDC 19:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

CarolMooreDC, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude6935 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Closed with finding there is no conflict of interest. Link to archived copy. (once archived). CarolMooreDC 17:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the Pro-choice libertrains website a self-published source?

It appears to me that the reference to the pro-choice libertarians website is a self-published source. I also don't see any evidence of the author's name, so I don't think it could be an expert source. Can anyone clarify this for me? Here is the link: http://pro-choicelibertarians.net/ Dude6935 (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The text used here was passed by the group members who are involved in these discussions and members have in the past suggested content to the web page and to petitions and leaflets we circulated, so this is really an irrelevant comment. Our group has been as active in the Libertarian Party and there are probably at least as many WP:RS sources as Libertarians for Life. However, the fact there is NO Pro-Choice Libertarians article shows that we are not promoting it! Maybe I should put the factoids on my talk page and let the Feminist Wikiproject know and someone there can write the article if they so choose! I don't think that would be a COI, would it??

What IS relevant is your failure to show that two sources you propose are WP:RS. I have no problem with evictionism being mentioned if properly sourced. I have no problem with adding more pro-life views from different libertarian reliable sources, though frankly haven't paid much attention to who they might be. If you know some, add them. CarolMooreDC 19:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am confused, is this not a self-published source making statements about other people? Isn't this an inappropriate source? Dude6935 (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't say SO AND SO SAYS. It says "Libertarians have said or believe" based on several people's input on things they have heard from 30 plus years of experience and which they all reviewed to make sure nothing was made up. CarolMooreDC 17:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a self-published statement on the beliefs of a whole group of other people without evidence of expertise. How do we know what experience you and your group has? We have only your word as far as I can tell. We don't even know who wrote those words. They could be your own words for all we know. Dude6935 (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Having since re-read the comments at WP:COIN and noticed the one about it would be better to summarize the comments, I did so very briefly in an NPOV way with note in the edit summary: The Pro-Choice Libertarians group lists some of the reasons libertarians may oppose government involvement in the abortion issue based on various views of morality, rights of the mother and the fetus, the proper role of government.[23] CarolMooreDC 19:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Problems with section titles??

I still don't understand the actual objection from an editor to the current section titles which comply with wikipedia's way of framing the issue. However, I have now come up with a second possible objection, in addition to one I listed above. But I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth. Please explain and discuss issues here. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If I were king of the page, I would structure it this way:

• Role of government (or similar)- so far the majority of the text falls under this category
• Pro-choice (the different moral/philosophical positions follow)
• Pro-life
• Other/Evictionism

Why? Take the anarcho-capitalist, to him everything should be legal with respect to the state. But murder would still be illegal in practice due to the combined effect of arbitration and protection services (or contracts). The same could be said for a pro-life anarcho-capitalist. He would want abortion to be legal WRT the state, but not in practice. Nor would he support abortion on moral grounds. So this is why I dislike the mushing together of legal and moral opinions. Dude6935 (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Both approaches suffer the same problem, since there are some pro-choice people who want the state involved at some point and pro-life people who don't want it at all.

It did occur to me today that "support for legal abortion" is a problematic title since there are lots of people who are against abortion but want the government out, so they would not describe their view as support for abortion; that's especially true for libertarians.

I think the most accurate way of saying it is:

• Opposition to government involvement(and specify that some may want govt involvement after viability outside the womb). Block's Evictionism would fall into that broader category. (And of course his view/alternative is easily evaded by "partial birth" abortion or just killing in the womb, doubtless why it hasn't caught on as "third" alternative.) It's obviously a strongly held view by you, but don't impose it on the article.
• Support for government involvement (and they tend to be opposed all the way through, though if any notable people are not, they can be noted).

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC 00:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your point about support for legal abortion. I don't think the goal is to represent each group's world view. I think the goal is to represent each separate libertarian view. A group/person could have it's moral argument in one section and its view on the role of government in another section. Or, if its statements only address the role of government, they would be referenced in that section. Rothbard views, based on my reading today in "The Ethics of Liberty", only regard the legality: "What we are trying to establish here is not the morality of abortion (which may or may not be moral on other grounds), but its legality, i.e., the absolute right of the mother to have an abortion. What we are concerned with in this book is people's rights to do or not do various things, not whether they should or should not exercise such rights."

Indeed, block would be opposition to government involvement except after viability, around 5 months into gestation.

WRT evictionism, unless you see partial birth abortion as some sort of mercy killing for a baby who no one wants to adopt, it is incompatible with evictionism. A mother would not normally kill a child in any act of surgery or violence (either inside or outside her body), since she only has the right to remove it from her body. Her right is to refuse to care for the child, not to cause it harm.

Regardless of adding the moral dichotomy to the legal dichotomy, I prefer your proposed titles. Dude6935 (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Too tired tonight to respond; workmen coming to house tomorrow. Soon. CarolMooreDC 03:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Libertarian perspectives on abortion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050305231031/http://www.abortionisprolife.com:80/faq.htm to http://www.abortionisprolife.com/faq.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of Article

On this talk page the main arguments focus on the libertarian perspective as well as the religious perspective. Within these topics, government funding is addressed. One person debated that the section that stated libertarian would not want to fund such activity against nature. However,he/ she voiced his/her perspective that funding birth control and abortion cold greatly affect the stabilization in population. For their perspective even related a human to a pet, basically saying unlike animals, humans are destined to become full citizens.

The next idea that was being converted is “Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find another person(s) willing to assume guardianship.” One debater made it known that he/ she was pro-abortion but the idea that a fetus doesn’t have a right to be in the mother’s womb, but is there by her permission is wrong. The individuals feel that fetus lies in the womb not by choice but basically due to the parents decision to procreate. Capitalism Magazine also supports pro- choice by saying, a fetus permission can be revoked at anytime depending on the mother. Harry Browne however, is against pro-choice and pro-life. He feels that Government doesn’t work, and eliminating abortions would be like eliminating drugs and poverty. One editor addresses the idea of misinterpreting Catholic views. He/ she states that Catholic institution doesn’t support abortion for medical issues and how Catholicism views abortion as a sin. He / she labels abortion as second opinion.

In conclusion, this talk page had many controversies on what was stated on the wikipedia page. Some feel that it violated their religion and was very disturbed of how the content mislead viewers when it came to the teachings of the Catholic religion. The debater in fact made it bold that this is not what the Catholic Religion represents. Also, many libertarians feel that some points were of on the page and were sure to correct them. Some felt free to include their personal opinions about the situation. Many debaters felt that the information in the article was biased and only spoke for some libertarians rather than all. They felt that maybe the word some would have made the statements true but definitely all didn’t view it that way. Debaters are also pro- human right for the most part. Many backed up the women's freedom of choice when it came to permission, allowance, and fetus. The conversations are pretty much civil for the most part, but they are very bold when it comes to individuals freely expressing their views on this article. Debaters definitely use their freedom of speech. The most controversial edit was the one on pro-abortion being the predominate libertarian viewpoint. Most controversial edits take place in the Summer, particularly 2005,2006,and 2009. The most shocking part was on the one with religion. I felt that it should be obvious that religion is against abortion, which is the acts of killing an unborn child. Corrections on content of the article were beneficial and needed to eliminate misunderstandings when comes to liberals, religion, and pro-choice.

Important Question

Can someone add Javier Milei's stance on abortion into this article?
Quang, Bùi Huy (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)