Philosophy Discussion Forums

Many readers of this article are most likely residents of a free country where they can exercise their right to elect their leaders. I am often conflicted about the extent of freedom one genuinely enjoys. Do we have the absolute freedom to express our opinions without fear, or are our freedoms merely conditional or partial?  
 
Libertarianism, at its core, champions the rights and freedoms of the individual. This philosophy advocates for everyone's ability to voice their thoughts or suggestions, with a basic expectation of being heard. It proposes a society where power is not in the hands of a few decision-makers, lobbyists, or religious groups. This ideal scenario proposes minimal government intervention in personal and economic affairs.
 
This concept extends to a woman's right to make choices regarding her pregnancy. The motivations for seeking an abortion can range from situations involving rape or incest to concerns related to financial, social, marital status, or health issues. *1
 
The state's authority to influence such a personal decision or deem it illegal under various criteria is unfair. "The legality of abortion in the United States and the various restrictions imposed on the procedure vary significantly, depending on the laws of each state or other jurisdiction, although there is no uniform federal law." *2
 
A woman has given a lot of thought before making a final decision. Can the law blatantly disregard the prospective child's primary caregiver's evaluation of the situation? The government and society's role is to prevent such situations by creating awareness, providing counseling where required, and leaving the decision to the women.
 
Libertarianism also demands thorough introspection about our preconceived notions. It begins with practicing what we promote. Hence, as a first step toward true freedom, let us all cast away the undesirable and work toward setting examples. It is also crucial to approach the goal without resorting to violent and aggressive methods.
 
1-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... Statistics
2- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... s_by_state

I agree with you on the principle of leaving women free to decide what is best for them. Of course, in the event of unusual circumstances, whether health-related or otherwise. But having laws that organize this would be better, taking into account every circumstance and every case.
The governmental intervention is either to protect the woman from the beginning or to make the intervention guarantee her freedom without excessive control.
Your thoughts express an idea that I think is on the minds of many, especially with the presence of people who want to deprive women of their rights.

I agree! Women should have the choice and the power to make their own decisions regarding this matter. I can only imagine the challenges a woman and her child might face growing up, considering the child was a result of rape, if the mother is in a financial crisis when the child is born, or for any other reason. Ultimately, the decision must be made by the woman.

I endorse 100% the full right of women to choose the fate of their pregnancy during the first semester. From that moment on, I believe abortion should be prohibited and penalized in different degrees, depending on the cruelty of the abortion method used. In any case, it should not be equated to murder, but to a minor offense.

I also think religious beliefs have no place in the legality of this issue. I also believe that during that first semester, healthcare should be made available without constraints. Rounding all of that, scientific research into the matter of abortion practices that avoid suffering to the fetus, should be promoted.

I wholeheartedly support a woman's freedom to choose how to manage an unwanted pregnancy and any other matters dealing with their own bodies. I, being a man, have never had to carry a baby in the womb for 40 weeks, go through labor, or suffer any complications due to a pregnancy. What right do I have to decide the fate of any woman who has this task? I felt extremely violated when my house was broken into, and I was robbed. I cannot imagine the violation a woman or girl must feel after being raped or a victim of incest. It must be the woman or girl who decides how to cope with our support.

I completely agree with you on this. It is indeed the woman's right to decide if she wants to continue the pregnancy. Laws that prevent this freedom of choice are unfair and can lead to a lifetime of guilt and pain for the woman in that situation.

Behind each decision lies the reason. Each person must have free will or freedom whatever decision they make with no judgement: whatever it is. Because if I am that person, I do what he/she did. Most of the decisions, especially difficult one that involves life have been internally and deeply thought through before it has been performed. Let them do whatever they want to do because that makes them free and happy, whatever it is, as long as they don't step on other lives and as long as it abides by the law. Let them have the right to choose with no judgement because we (I) don't know what she/he has been through. This is my own opinion. Thanks.

Seetha E wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2024, 1:51 pm Libertarianism, at its core, champions the rights and freedoms of the individual. This philosophy...

In the name of clarity, nothing more, may I observe that Libertarianism is a political ideology, not a "philosophy" of itself?

I'm against abortion, but for adoption if the mother does not want or cannot care for the baby, whatever her reasons are. I realize that not everyone sees the world the same way. I think abortion should be only used as a last resort, such as major health reasons to where it has to be done, then I could understand.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 5th, 2024, 11:37 am

Seetha E wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2024, 1:51 pm Libertarianism, at its core, champions the rights and freedoms of the individual. This philosophy...

In the name of clarity, nothing more, may I observe that Libertarianism is a political ideology, not a "philosophy" of itself?

Thank you for your question:
As defined, libertarianism is a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens.
Ideology is rigid and exerts its legitimacy. On the other hand, philosophy is always open to discussion and unbiased introspection. Philosophy encourages thinking, while ideology refuses to accept anything contradictory. I see ideology as a subset of philosophy.

Promoting libertarianism on the Internet? Does anyone else see the irony? Hilarious!

This is a thought-provoking article, Seetha. I agree that the right to make personal decisions, especially regarding one's body, is a fundamental part of individual freedom. It's important that society and government respect this autonomy while ensuring access to education, counseling, and support. Striking a balance between freedom and responsibility can help create a society that respects all choices, without coercion or unfair restrictions. Thanks for sharing your perspective!

Seems like many of the above posts would be perfectly reasonable if there were only one person involved.

Should a woman be free to choose whether to have a cyst or a cancer removed ? Absolutely!

But a developing foetus is an early-stage human life...

Any approach to the question which doesn't involve some sort of explicit weighing-up of the rights of all the parties involved risks coming across as one-sided and shallow.

The difficulty being that the acquisition of human characteristics is gradual, but our culture favours all-or-nothing binary distinctions...

Seetha E wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2024, 1:51 pm Libertarianism, at its core, champions the rights and freedoms of the individual. This philosophy...

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 5th, 2024, 11:37 am In the name of clarity, nothing more, may I observe that Libertarianism is a political ideology, not a "philosophy" of itself?

Seetha E wrote: ↑December 5th, 2024, 1:21 pm As defined, libertarianism is a political philosophy...

As you wish. I sought only to clarify. You may call your political religion anything you wish to call it.

In the defense of one’s family, it is possible that most humans can and will resource to eliminate the threat to the maximum consequence. In the bigger picture soldiers defend interests of countries and they do kill to do this. Is the acorn the oak? A lifeform exists at the moment of conception and “grows” to a heartbeat and to breathing the air. There is no doubt that abortion is killing. An unwanted pregnancy might correlate with a wanted defense of variable interests. What’s the difference? IMO, there is no investment in a fetus. No emotional investment and no social investment (mostly economic) in the (world) of 73 million abortions per year. So, it is a woman’s decision since the law states (in many countries) that a fetus is not protected under the law. However, this decision might require some thinking about “paradoxes” … doctrines like “stop the genocide” or “the death penalty is wrong” that surge in the media would be incongruent with abortion… (IMO). It is about killing in the beginning, the middle and the end. So, in the politics of countries and organizations’ motives, the fundamental theory is about protecting their own survival. If I support war, I might be inclined to support abortion if the reasons align with my convictions. For example: 40 years plus of being in Gaza and yet abortion is illegal, and no means of healthcare is available. Women rights take the back seat to salaries that need increases. Again. Why is a child more important than a fetus? Is it just a perception? IMO. There are unknown metacognitive consequences as well. Maybe a paradox. That’s why as a matter of law it is a complicated matter, and one wrong abortion (in my conviction) makes a faulty abortion law my preference and on the other hand rightful (by conviction) abortions might make the anti-abortion law wrong by imposing a paradox. However, it could be better (aligning with society values) like some Muslim countries or Israel, that although restrictive is better than a faulty law. Imagine a law that leaves the decision to women in cases of rape, incest and dependencies… (and maybe more). IMO abortion is a woman’s choice and Society has the duty to protect and therefore civil penalties for a careless accident of human nature or after the fact (taxes and a more liberal law) but all supported by healthcare. The number of abortions per year is increasing, and it is draining resources. Not easy to make resources available for a just law. More about reasons than timing. Genocide, guilt, women’s rights under some umbrella charity organizations amount to the bigger salaries to those under the umbrella and a bigger problem and no change at all (they create more problems because of their priorities) so bigger resources to spill. The results of 40 plus years on the ground in Gaza speak for themselves spilling problems all over the world. Change? I believe it when I see it. Free speech. Maybe some priorities (IMO): 1 women’s rights then feeding then education. All priorities correlate with women’s rights.