Zo’s Libertarian Follow-Up: Responding to the Commenters

Side note to libertarians who keep saying “Not all libertarians are pro-abortion. Many are pro-life.” They’ll point to Ron Paul who’s an OBGYN, who’s delivered thousands of babies. So? OBGYN’s also perform abortions too. So being an OBGYN doesn’t automatically make you pro-life. The following is the typical libertarian idea of “Pro-life”. “I am against abortion personally. But what a woman does with her body is her business, and it’s her choice.” Just want to be left alone, right?

Or libertarians who are “pro-life” typically think that abortion should be decided on state levels. That is not pro-life. The right to LIFE is inalienable. It is a supreme law of the land, and no state can ignore it and have a court ruling that can deprive another human being the right to live without due process. The same thing with slavery. The supreme law of the land says you can not deprive a person of their liberty without due process, and no state can ignore it and have a court ruling that says they can deprive another human being of liberty without due process and have a slave market.

If a state is free to violate another person’s God given rights then what would characterize us as being the “United States”? We’re united under the truth that we’re all created equal with certain inalienable rights. And if each state can rule against that truth, then what kind of union do we have? So I don’t want to hear how you think you’re pro-life. You’re not. Some libertarians I know are adamantly pro-life, and even more so than some “Christians” or “conservatives” I know. But a lot of libertarians I encounter are inconsistent on their concept of pro-life. Instead of being angry with me for calling out libertarians, maybe y’all should start calling out them fruit loops calling themselves libertarians who are blowing it for you. Hear more in this ZoNation!

Thanks for watching my vids! If you like the message in them then You’ll have a BLAST nukin’ the liberal Narrative with my audio book of Christian Conservalicious profundus, written and read by Me! WEAPON OF A.S.S. DESTRUCTION! CLICK HERE OR IMAGE AND CHECK OUT SOME REVIEWS, AND GET YOUR COPY!!!


  • JR

    and this is exactly why I cannot in good conscience vote libertarian.

    • JoeB154

      No libertarian would force you to violate your conscience, but they would prevent you from forcing your belief’s on others…

      It is beyond ironic that the right complains and argues about the left trying to force their opinions on them, ie gun control, social justice, etc, yet they turn around and try to force their opinions about abortion on them. It is true that R=D..

    • Thanatos144

      Abortion is killing innocent humans.

    • JR

      Nothing ironic about it. I am right there with libertarianism on most issues but I cannot move beyond the pro-choice thing.

    • patgo

      Sorry, but you are all wet. People who commit or obtain abortions are forcing their opinions on the BABIES, in a DEADLY way. Your argument is totally fallacious.

    • JR

      I would agree with you except you are leaving out a very important thing. The baby that is murdered is a person and entitled to the same rights as me. I would have no issue with abortion at all if it didn’t involve the murder of another human being – taking away all their rights.

  • GalaxyJane

    I know you are set on your thoughts about this, and while my politics are (small l) libertarian, I don’t have any great love for the Libertarian Party itself. But I want to offer just a little insight as a woman who, despite my Christian faith, was not firmly rooted or comfortable in the strict anti-abortion camp until my politics shifted from conservative to libertarian. The more I studied libertarian principles, the more I came to finally understand that abortion under ANY circumstances is a blatant violation of the non-aggression principle. “One’s right to control one’s own body does not allow violating
    the obligation not to aggress” And that this argument applies regardless of anyone’s religious beliefs.

    I do invite you, and your readers, to take a look at this piece, which expresses the thought processes that brought me to that point better than I could myself, through the experiences of another who went through the same thing.

    http://www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html

    I also suggest looking through the other resources available at Libertarians for life, if for no other reason than to understand that there are serious, well-defined libertarian arguments against abortion that might help you sway others of a libertarian (and often atheistic) bent to what is generally considered the conservative (and religious) position.

    http://www.l4l.org/

    • pearl87

      I applaud your conscientiousness. Please be aware you are a minnow swimming upstream in a sea of libertines, as a pro-life “libertarian”. It’s not that the philosophy is wrong, (the FOUNDERS were libertarian), it’s that the modern interpretation of it is corrupted beyond recognition

    • patgo

      Totally agree. I would estimate around 1/3 of libertarians are pro-life. I found it easy to persuade a libertarian to embrace the pro-life position. All I had to do was demonstrate that the unborn child was a human being. Obviously, many of them have been involved with abortion. They are hard to persuade. But I would like to emphasize your point that the MODERN INTERPRETATION OF IT IS CORRUPTED BEYOND RECOGNITION. The Founders recognized that the Constitution would only work for a virtuous nation, and specifically said so. The people who simply want to make licentiousness legal have corrupted the modern movement. They will never fight for true liberty. They only don’t want to be punished for harming others, and claim their activity doesn’t harm anyone else. I don’t know what planet they live on. Everything we do affects others one way or another.

    • JoeB154

      I am a pro-life Christian libertarian, and I hear exactly what you’re saying… but our numbers are growing as liberty loving people like us continue to clear up the misconceptions fueled by both the right and the left…

    • GalaxyJane

      So very, very true Joe, thanks!

    • pearl87

      I hope you’re right, because I’d join you too. BUT, the whole Sarvin fiasco in VA really left me with a bad taste.

    • GalaxyJane

      The Sarvin thing was sick, I actually ended up in public shooting match with one of his supporters during the recent Senate run up because of all the duplicitousness. And I’m not the public confrontation type. This is why I stress small (l)ibertarian. My political philosophy is libertarian, or classical liberal if you prefer the term. I do not find the big (L)ibertarian Party to be useful or consistent in it’s beliefs.

    • JoeB154

      Interesting argument GJ. but the right to life overrides the non-aggression principle, the questions is when does the babies right to life begin? We cannot base an argument on opinions, or ‘belief’s’ so we must resort to science. The only valid piece of science we have available is when a fetus can survive without the mother. Doctors presently, I do expect this number to shrink, say that a fetus can survive outside the womb at 22 weeks, therefore science puts the beginning of ‘live’ at 22 weeks, and a substantial argument can be created that all abortions, with the exception of saving the mothers life, be banned and made unlawful after 22 weeks…

    • pearl87

      Independent viability is not the same as “life”. Everyone agrees that a fetus has life. Otherwise it would not grow and develop. You are splitting hairs like a good murderer to justify the unjustifiable.

    • GalaxyJane

      I’m not quite sure what you are saying. Unless by “right to life” you mean the mother’s right to a life that isn’t inconvenienced, which isn’t generally how the term is understood. The non-aggression principle is not overridden by, but affirms the the right to life. Boiled down to basics it affirms that no-one has the right to take the life of another except in self-defense against someone who is committing a pre-emptive act of aggression against the defendant. And an unborn child has the right to be where they are and, by definition, is not an aggressor and therefor should not be agressed against in line with libertarian ethics.

      As far as the “when does life begin” argument, by the strictest scientific definition, life begins at conception, which is the moment that a separate being, with completely separate DNA comes into being, with a life that may be dependent on another for support, but is still a distinct being. Any other distinction is simply a difference in age and stage of development i.e. the difference between a 2 year old and an 18 year old, not between an alive and a dead person. And I say this as a medical practitioner, who didn’t actually understand this fact until I started my medical studies, another step on the path to becoming anti-abortion.

    • patgo

      Abortionists should be prosecuted for murder. They are allegedly medical practitioners. They have the knowledge (scienter) because they KNOW the baby is a human being from fertilization onward and they have the intent (mens rea) because nobody is compelling them to commit an abortion. It is up to the doctors to strip abortionists of their licenses because they have violated medical ethics. The rest of us have no authority to do so.

    • patgo

      Sorry, that’s NOT science. Science tells us that the baby’s life begins at fertilization. The baby IS viable where he or she belongs: in the womb. You are not viable in the ocean or space without assistance. Shall we say that you have no right to life until you can live in those two environments without assistance? Outlawing abortion after 22 weeks would save almost no babies. It’s a good way to weasel out of the real issue: the baby is viable from fertilization onward when in his or her proper environment, even as we are. Thus, an honest law based on viability would outlaw any abortion after fertilization because ALL babies are viable in their proper habitat.

    • GoneFishing

      You say, “The only valid piece of science we have available is when a fetus can survive without the mother.”
      That’s the pro-abortionist’s life limiting opinion, disallowing any other qualifiers, that ignores biology: No matter at what stage of development, starting at conception, going through the stages of embryo, fetus and as yet unborn, it’s alive. If it weren’t alive, it wouldn’t have been growing and developing. So that argument disqualifies. Life really does start at conception.
      BTW, a newborn can’t survive alone OUTSIDE the womb either without assistance (food, nurturing, etc.).

  • pearl87

    Ron Paul IS pro life, not because he’s an obstetrician, but because he is a Godly man and has said again and again that he knows abortion is murder. If he supports state determination on the issue, it’s because the top down federal govt is what brought us MANDATED NATIONWIDE ABORTION.

    Otherwise, I agree with everything you said, Zo. The libertarian movement is full of leftists. They don’t believe in the responsibility that goes with liberty, just the licentiousness. But please stop dissing my man, Ron Paul. He isn’t a lefty nutcase.

    • Thanatos144

      So he is okay for some states to kill innocent babies and that makes him Anti Abortion???? Do you read what you post?

    • pearl87

      It’s not “okay” and Ron Paul doesn’t think it is, any more than you do. BUT can you do anything about it as an individual? Can any pro life group or church, or individual legislator have any impact on the federal govt? Open your eyes! It’s been more than 40 years since the FEDERAL GOVT IMPOSED ABORTION ON 50 STATES by FIAT. Before that day, abortion was illegal EVERYWHERE in the U.S. The pro-abort forces knew then, as they know now, that as long as we are fighting leviathan, we the people can NEVER win that fight.

    • Thanatos144

      Being a coward means Ron Paul supports it. End of story. What else do you expect from a lying establishment politician like Ron Paul?

    • JoeB154

      There is a difference between political philosophy and personal beliefs. Ron’s personal beliefs are anti-abortion, his political philosophy is that nobody has the right to force their beliefs on anyone else… Until it can be proven when a fetus becomes a person, all there is to argue is your belief vs their belief…

    • patgo

      Ron Paul is EVASIVE. He would return abortion to the states KNOWING that some states would not protect women and babies from abortionists. That is not pro-life. Zo is right on that point. Since he offers the argument that he is an obstetrician who delivered thousands of babies as evidence he is pro-life, it’s relevant. Sorry. If you were to ask Ron Paul whether the federal government should (as it does with kidnapping) prohibit transporting anything across state lines in furtherance of abortion, what do you suppose he would say? States cannot exercise that particular authority. Since the federal government DID mandate nationwide abortion, it MUST be corrected at the national level. The MOST Ron Paul could have said is that he would not enforce Roe v. Wade because despite the ruling, it is unconstitutional. I suggested that to him. He never said it.

      For Ron Paul and others of his persuasion, liberty trumps life. Sorry, but that’s true.

      Ron Paul also does not believe that a nation has a right to defend itself and other persecuted people with military force. He is anti-war. He would appear to be perfectly comfortable with allowing terrorists to come to our shores and plant IEDs on our roads, and suicide-bomb our shopping malls and stadia. It is wisdom to pin down violent people on their home turf so they cannot harm others not living in their immediate vicinity, and it is wisdom to exterminate the ones who have actually committed violence. These people are a threat to our nation. Defending our nation is one of the primary responsibilities of government. Ron Paul forgets that the FOUNDERS believed in taking the right TO the violent people. Thomas Jefferson exterminated the Barbary Pirates. There is no practical distinction between Barbary Pirates and modern-day terrorists. Ron Paul is not pro-life when it comes to protecting the people of our nation from terrorism.

      No dissing here. Just stating facts.

    • pearl87

      People like you are closet liberals – you belief that the FEDERAL govt has a right and duty to micromanage EVERYONE, and the states and people have no rights to handle anything on their own. I believe, as does Ron Paul,that we have far greater power to affect change on the state level, and we could outlaw abortion in 50 individual states far easier than in one behemoth that simply ignores the people. Are you ignorant of the fact that abortion was ILLEGAL IN EVERY STATE, until the federal govt’s “Supreme Court” stepped in to FORCE them to make it legal?

      It’s like the old saying, “How do you eat an elephant?”
      ONE BITE AT A TIME

    • patgo

      You want to know what brings about micromanagement? LEGAL ABORTION.
      There is far more micromanagement going on with it legal than there ever
      was before it was legalized. Regardless of WHICH approach is most
      successful, ALL MUST BE TRIED. Evading the responsibility to do what you
      have the authority to do, just because someone else MIGHT be more
      successful, doesn’t cut it! Sorry!

      Abortion was NOT illegal in every state until Roe v. Wade. It was legal in California, New York, and Colorado before then, and hundreds of thousands abortions were already being committed at that time. And it is a virtual certainty that if only the states act, it will remain legal in a number of them, probably far more than three.

      Sorry, but your message presents NO arguments that are a valid argument against the lawful and constitutional exercise of presidential authority.

  • patgo

    Ron Paul is NOT pro-life because he believes that if he were elected president, he should evade his responsibility under the Constitution to protect the right to life, by returning the question to the states. He KNOWS that not all states will outlaw abortion. He FORGETS that the Supreme Court federalized abortion with Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Some libertarians (capital or small l, doesn’t matter) do believe that the right to life should be protected by law. Sometimes people forget that most women don’t want an abortion, and they are coerced. If you tell people that women deserve a law protecting them from abortionists, you address another issue that may reach some people. Some libertarians understand that abortion violates the non-aggression principle. They will support laws against abortion. For more information on how to persuade libertarians, see the Libertarians for Life web site: http:///www.l4l.org/ It establishes the philosophical basis for including the right to life of the unborn in legislation designed to address violations of the non-aggression principle.

    • pearl87

      You are wrong about Ron Paul. He IS pro-life and he says so whenever he is asked. He just believes that the deck is stacked against a head-on confrontation with the special interests in Washington. Think about it. The Republican “pro-life” faction has had control of all three branches of the federal govt at various times since Roe v. Wade, but they still have done nothing. I question the real motives of anyone who believes that this strategy is effective. It’s almost as though you have a stake in continued failure, because that’s what you get when you ram your head into a brick wall and insist that the wall must move.

    • patgo

      Sorry, but SAYING you’re pro-life don’t make it so. The mere fact that the Republicans have failed to control abortion on the national level doesn’t mean we should not do everything in our power on ALL LEVELS. As president, Ron Paul would have had the authority to simply say, “I will not enforce Roe v. Wade. You may prosecute your abortionists on the state level, pass laws prohibiting it outright, and so forth, and I will not interfere.” He wouldn’t even say THAT much. Ask yourself why.

      I have no stake in continued failure. I believe in RESULTS. And there has been successful legislation on the national level that has whittled away on abortion. You have to do EVERYTHING: outright ban, personhood, and whittling away. Each has its purpose.

      As one of the founders of Feminists for Life said, “when the undertaker asked the relatives, should we bury the remains, cremate them, or send them home? they responded, take no chances. Do all three.” Likewise here. Do all three. Do it on all three levels: federal, state, and local.

      Anybody who says that some methods of stopping abortion violate the Constitution doesn’t understand the Constitution. Sorry. Anybody who would EVADE his authority to stop abortion if he were elected president is NOT PRO-LIFE. End of story.

    • pearl87

      Some people are just plain fools and I’m done trying to reason with all of you. You are probably the same people who scream like stuck pigs when Obola grants amnesty by E.O., but you claim that a mere candidate for president should be such a demagogue as to claim he will singlehandedly outlaw abortion nationwide?
      Take some responsibility for yourself and stop looking for a hero. There was ONE savior of mankind, Jesus Christ. Now it’s on us, and the founders didn’t want us to place trust in men, but in our own integrity.
      Idiots get the “rulers” they deserve.

    • patgo

      A mere candidate for president NEEDS to tell us what he INTENDS to do if elected. I never said Ron Paul should claim he would singlehandedly outlaw abortion nationwide. I suggested that he should say he will NOT ENFORCE Roe because it violates the Constitution. You misrepresent my argument. That fallacy is called Straw Man. Look it up. You attack the person instead of the argument. That is an ad hominem attack.

      I am not looking for a hero. I am looking for a candidate who will uphold the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states plainly that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law. Since when has an unborn baby received due process? Ron Paul would have solid ground to refuse to enforce Roe. I tend to trust people who appear to have integrity. Saying you’re pro-life when, if elected, would evade his responsibility to uphold the Fifth Amendment lacks integrity. Sorry.

    • pearl87

      Just a liberal dressed up as a Republican, that’s what you are. Big Daddy Govt is your savior and then you have no obligation to do right on your own.

    • patgo

      You call that an ARGUMENT? That is nothing but an ad hominem attack. I win!

    • pearl87

      It is NOT an attack, it is an observation, based on the fact that you expect a presidential candidate to impose his will on the nation, regardless of law which prohibits such conduct. This is your big problem. I disagree with your philosophical underpinnings, though not necessarily your positions. You are in error if you believe, as Obola does, that the ends justify the means. A president is not an emperor or a king. He is not the ruler of the country. He is supposed to be the one who executes laws passed by the legislative branch. Your understanding about what America is, is so deeply impaired by the media and the modern desire to invest the president with autocratic powers, that you don’t even realize you are destroying, not only America and liberty, but even virtue itself, by allowing all power to act to be subsumed by the federal govt. It is madness and it is un-American.

    • Thanatos144

      Ron Paul is pro baby killing. How do we know this? Because he cowardly says it is a state issue.

    • patgo

      Let me explain this another way. Ron Paul supports “states’ rights”. States don’t have rights with respect to PEOPLE. They have responsibilities. When states are not protecting human beings, it is right and proper for the federal government to step in and make sure they are protected. That is what the Bill of Rights is all about. “States’ rights” didn’t protect any “right” to enslave other human beings. “States’ rights” doesn’t protect any “right” to kill innocent human beings because they are very small, or to rape women with surgical instruments for hire. The states’ rights position is NOT a PRO-LIFE position, as ZO so ably pointed out.

      Ron Paul KNOWS that not all states will choose to protect mothers and babies from abortion butchers, even as not all states protected the right of a person to be free. Since he KNOWS that the enforcement of rights will be arbitrary at best on the state level, he has no business telling people he is pro-life. He is not pro-life. He is for “states’ rights”. No more and no less. It is STILL a position in favor of allowing some government to oppress innocent people. It is not libertarian, either, because it violates the non-aggression principle. The Founders stated clearly that governments have the responsibility to protect rights granted by our Creator. This is the essence of the non-aggression principle.

      So Ron Paul is neither pro-life nor libertarian. He would allow the Supreme Court to continue to enslave and oppress innocent women and children, and he would allow selected states to do the same. He is pro-government, and wants to impose HIS view of what government should be like on the rest of us, including people who cannot defend themselves, particularly the unborn.

    • patgo

      No, I am not expecting a presidential candidate to impose his will on the nation. The SUPREME COURT imposed ITS will on the nation. A president who refuses to enforce Roe is liberating the people from the SLAVERY the SUPREME COURT imposed on us. Get it yet? Yes, the president is supposed to execute the laws passed by the legislative branch. THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH DID NOT LEGALIZE ABORTION. THE SUPREME COURT DID. Capiche? Since I am not doing what you accuse me of, your remaining accusations have no basis. Oh, and one more thing: presidential candidates can’t impose ANYTHING. They have to be elected first. I am simply at a loss to know how to explain it any better. Thanatos, THANK YOU!

    • patgo

      I got an email in which you wrote: “People like you are closet liberals – you belief that the FEDERAL govt
      has a right and duty to micromanage EVERYONE, and the states and people
      have no rights to handle anything on their own. I believe, as does Ron
      Paul,that we have far greater power to affect change on the state level,
      and we could outlaw abortion in 50 individual states far easier than in
      one behemoth that simply ignores the people. Are you ignorant of the
      fact that abortion was ILLEGAL IN EVERY STATE, until the federal govt’s
      “Supreme Court” stepped in to FORCE them to make it legal?”

      Apparently you weren’t brave enough to leave this here for a response, but I am going to respond anyway.

      You want to know what brings about micromanagement? LEGAL ABORTION. There is far more micromanagement going on with it legal than there ever was before it was legalized. Regardless of WHICH approach is most successful, ALL MUST BE TRIED. Evading the responsibility to do what you have the authority to do, just because someone else MIGHT be more successful, doesn’t cut it! Sorry!

      Abortion was NOT illegal in every state until Roe v. Wade. It was legal in California, New York, and Colorado before then, and hundreds of thousands abortions were already being committed at that time. And it is a virtual certainty that if only the states act, it will remain legal in a number of them, probably far more than three.

      Sorry, but your message presents NO arguments that are a valid argument against the lawful and constitutional exercise of presidential authority.

      And by the way, watch who you are calling a “closet liberal” As far as I am concerned, that is a deadly insult! If you knew me personally, you would KNOW that I have taken advantage of NO liberal programs which I WAS NOT COMPELLED BY LAW TO ACCEPT. That includes public schools, something most CONSERVATIVES will accept.

    • pearl87

      You are wrong and a fool. And BTW, I was “brave enough” to leave my response here and I did so 44 minutes ago.

    • patgo

      I saw the message later. It didn’t post before I got the email, like it should have. I tried to delete the message, and it just left it as “guest”. Bad software! And by the way, as before, you offer NO ARGUMENT. Are you out of things you consider valid, to say?

    • pearl87

      Verbosity does not an argument make, but it’s all you have offered.

    • patgo

      Ah! I’ve got you figured out. You can’t, or won’t read. If you did read, you’d get the points I made.

    • patgo

      A mere candidate for president NEEDS to tell us what he INTENDS to do if elected. I never said Ron Paul should claim he would singlehandedly outlaw abortion nationwide. I suggested that he should say he will NOT ENFORCE Roe because it violates the Constitution. You misrepresent my argument. That fallacy is called Straw Man. Look it up. You attack the person instead of the argument. That is an ad hominem attack.

      I am not looking for a hero. I am looking for a candidate who will uphold the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states plainly that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law. Since when has an unborn baby received due process? Ron Paul would have solid ground to refuse to enforce Roe. I tend to trust people who appear to have integrity. Saying you’re pro-life when, if elected, you would evade your responsibility to uphold the Fifth Amendment is an example of lack of integrity. Sorry.

    • pearl87

      You lack the intelligence to have a rational discussion. You evade every salient point and (speaking of ad hominem) you attack Ron Paul without justice. He is completely consistent in his advocacy for life, and has been, throughout his career. You want to condemn and you have no respect for a good person. People like you do harm to conservatism and the cause of Life, by intentionally painting all who disagree with YOUR interpretations as evil. It is destructive and dishonest.
      As Thomas Jefferson said, “I tremble for my country, when I reflect that God is just…”
      God is also merciful and He gave us, on a silver platter, a man who had the courage, intelligence, and decency to lead our nation back to the path of righteousness. Because of ignorance, hypocrisy, and sanctimonious fools, we have Obola and a parcel of RINOs dragging us all into hell.

    • patgo

      Another ad hominem attack! I’m winning all over the place.

      No, Ron Paul WAS NOT CONSISTENT. He voted repeatedly against parental notification on the federal level, that would have notified parents that their daughter was trying to have an abortion. Since parents are LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for their children, where does he get off preventing them from knowing that their daughter intends to kill their grandchild and might lose her own life in the process?

      Ron Paul was simply not acceptable for a number of reasons. I didn’t vote for the fools that are supposedly representing me. I always voted for the “other guy”. So I am not to blame for the regime under which I suffer.

    • pearl87

      When you aren’t declaring victory you are lying. you have no intellectual integrity, nor do you seem to really want t discussion, just a fight.

    • patgo

      Ah! Another ad hominem attack. Apparently you can’t refute what I said about Ron Paul. I am not interested in a fight, and I don’t see the point in your defamatory comments. I simply don’t want people like Ron Paul pulling the wool over people’s eyes. That is NOT libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. Remember, libertarianism is against fraud. Claiming to be pro-life when you intend to EVADE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to protect u8nborn life is exactly that: fraud.

  • Thanatos144

    Never stops. Any time someone posts anything about Libertarians the militant libertarians come out to spin , obfuscate, and misrepresent what was said or posted about libertarians. They truly are no duiffrent then liberals in this regard as well as the hedonism aspect of liberalism. The only real difference is liberals are honest enough to admit they want others to pay for it.

    • JoeB154

      It is you who is misrepresenting the libertarian stance. No libertarian would force anyone to ‘pay for it’. While everyone is free to do as they wish, as long as they don’t violate the rights of another, no one is obligated to help them avoid the consequences of their actions… IF you desire infomation, instead of wanting to stay ignorant, here is some pertinent material: http://www.historycarper.com/articles/notlibertarian.html

    • Thanatos144

      I am not stupid. I know that hedonism comes with a price. Libertarians are ether to stupid to see this OR are just dishonest.

    • JoeB154

      Libertarians are not hedonists, and being ignorant is not the same as being stupid. Ignorance is a choice, stupid is forever.. Now, how about you read that article so you’re not so misinformed.

    • patgo

      Sorry, but libertarians who are not pro-life ARE forcing people to pay for it. We pay for police protection. Police protect these mass axe-murderers. We’re paying for it.

  • Jeff Schoonover

    EXACTLY Zo!
    This is precisely the argument I use, and it’s irrefutable. The right to life is UNALIENABLE! It was endowed upon us by nature and our creator. No man or government can take it without due process. The founders made it perfectly clear they understood this in the Declaration.
    I believe exceptions should be made when it was not the woman’s choice to have sex. After that, she already MADE her choice.

    • pearl87

      I agree with you (mostly), just want to point out that, even if a woman is raped, the child is still a separate being. It’s philosophically inconsistent to make it okay to kill that child any more than another.

    • Jeff Schoonover

      Agreed, but the mother was denied her unalienable right of LIBERTY by being forcibly impregnated. Not saying it’s perfect, but it’s the right thing to do.

    • patgo

      No, Jeff, it is NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO. It is wrong for the baby. It is wrong for the mother, whether you THINK so or not. You don’t fix a denial of rights by denying more rights. I am sickened by the very thought that killing a baby will make everything all right. It won’t. The rape happened. It cannot be undone. But the mother can still rise above that and protect her child. It’s our responsibility to help her do that, not abandon her to an axe-murderer who will rape her with surgical instruments. It’s our responsibility to teach women how to fight back against rapists in the first place, and avoid ever having to deal with them. Rape is evil and abortion is evil. Let’s stop while we can. Let’s not commit MORE injustice in the name of rights.

    • Jeff Schoonover

      I still don’t agree, and I don’t think we will come to agreement. Personhood will never pass, at least not in our lifetimes. What do you guys think about cases of incest? Molestation? Inbreeding surely isn’t nature’s way…

    • patgo

      Incest is just a special case of rape in most cases, so the same arguments apply. The percentage of people who have defects as a result of being born of an incestuous relationship is greatly overblown. It is actually less than 1%, and plenty of children of customary relationships also have defects, at about the same rate. That portion falls under the category of abortion for a child’s “defect”. Having a significant medical problem is not grounds for capital punishment, either.

      I have a close relative with Down Syndrome. Thank God his mother never considered abortion! He has been a huge blessing to the family, and you’d have to cross my dead body to harm a hair on his head. His arrival healed a family full of broken relationships, and he inspired his parents to reach out and help other parents with children with disabilities. He also proved that mental retardation is not necessarily a part of the package. His language development was that of a five year old at the age of 3 1/2. He also demonstrated that the real problem is that people with DS have a different learning style, and we do not design our educational systems with this learning style in mind. Most of the problems are due to this problem, not mental retardation. And even if mental retardation WERE an inevitable part of the package, that still wouldn’t justify capital punishment. These people are a huge blessing, yet 90% of them are aborted. Not only that, but there is a waiting list of parents who are seeking to adopt a child with Down Syndrome. The fact a woman bears a child with Down Syndrome does not mean she is obligated to raise that child.

      Another thing most people don’t factor in is the fact that abortion by ANY method makes a woman much more prone to bear a child with a birth defect. This is because abortion damages the cervix, and it won’t hold the weight of a full term baby, and when babies are born very prematurely, they are prone to develop birth defects (and they are BIRTH defects). These include cerebral palsy, autism, epilepsy, mental retardation, blindness, deafness, breathing and eating problems. You’re not eliminating a case of a child with a birth defect. You are increasing the chance of one in the future. And early birth isn’t the only problem. Miscarriage is 400% more common after abortion. And then there are the women who die of a particularly nasty form of breast cancer, called triple negative, before they are 40. Triple negative doesn’t respond to any of the three common allopathic treatments for breast cancer. Because of the one child policy in China, cases of women with this type of breast cancer have skyrocketed. And abortion kills women. There are a lot more women being butchered than anybody realizes. The number being killed has also greatly increased as a result of legalized abortion, because many more women are getting abortions in the first place. If you put your ear to the ground, you know that people like Gosnell are COMMON, and nearly all abortion centers are filthy, unsafe places staffed by careless people who no longer have a medical ethic, so they simply do not take proper care of anyone. And of the ones who survive, many suffer some serious immediate damage. And that doesn’t even address the fact that women suffer emotionally and spiritually from abortion. I have spent countless hours trying to help women with this problem. Just to give you one figure, the chance of suicide increases by 6 TIMES after abortion, as opposed to carrying to term.

      Remember, the Holocaust started with the slaughter of people who had significant medical problems or “defects”. And we see this developing in our own country with legalized euthanasia, and the killing of the old and disabled behind people’s backs. The Living Will grants a doctor permission to kill a patient, against the patient’s later decision to live, and against the will of relatives.

      Regardless of whether “personhood” passes, it ought to be PRESUMED they are persons. They are just as much persons as black people. It took a terrible war and many deaths on both sides to get rid of slavery. Do we have to do that again, or are we willing to learn the lessons of history? The mere fact we think we need to pass legislation to declare these tiny, defenseless children persons tells me that we are off on the wrong track to begin with, and is a tacit admission that personhood is the result of laws. It is not. Personhood is inherent.

      As for what is nature’s way, nature has no skin in this game. Nature has no consciousness and no sapience or rationality. Nature is what it is. People sometimes ask, where did Cain get his wife? He married his sister. That’s incest. It was perfectly safe for the children until our genetic code had deteriorated to the point where defects were occasionally passed on.

      You are a tough customer. But you need to think seriously about the fact that you are condemning innocent tiny children to capital punishment even though they have committed no crime whatsoever. If you truly believe in justice, and the non-aggression principle, this is a huge contradiction, and unfortunately, innocent children are dying because so many people hold your beliefs. You influence public opinion, and therefore the law. And you consign babies and women to violent despicable deaths, or being seriously maimed. Our children and we DESERVE AND NEED legal protection from abortionists. We are being denied that legal protection, and that is an injustice and a travesty.

      You’re talking about hard cases. Remember, hard cases make bad law. You are promoting injustice, and that includes injustice to the mother.

    • Jeff Schoonover

      Thanks for your thoughts. I’m not convinced, and the point is moot, as personhood will never pass. But I’m sure we can agree that the first step is to repeal Roe v Wade.

    • patgo

      The point is, rape and incest victims are already the victims of violence. They ABOVE ALL deserve better than abortion. We should not be abandoning them like this. That is despicable.

      As for personhood, yes, I think it WILL pass. You can’t repeal a court decision. You can only overrule it, and the Supreme Court has to do that. It has shown it doesn’t intend to do so. At least not until there are some new conservative justices. They are reluctant to disturb things that are settled. Congress can pass a law or constitutional amendment to defeat Roe, but the most likely way to do that would be personhood. None of the other things they could do will really stop it.

    • patgo
    • gray_man

      No, it is NOT the right thing to do.

    • patgo

      So you think a baby should be executed for a rapist’s crime? That’s odd!

    • Jeff Schoonover

      I wouldn’t put in such terms, but the short answer is yes. LIBERTY is also an unalienable right. The mother had her liberty denied when she was impregnated by force.

    • patgo

      Oh now wait a minute! Just because HER liberty was denied by a man, does that mean she has the right to deny her baby LIFE? That makes no sense whatsoever! The situation is a bad one. Hard cases make bad law. Please keep in mind that for the rape victim (the older one), abortion is a SECOND RAPE. Most women who have been raped don’t want an abortion, but often succumb to that second rape because of social expectations or even pressure. When a rape victim (the older one) has an abortion, she is no longer just a victim. She becomes an aggressor. And her aggression is worse because it doesn’t just deprive the baby of liberty, but of life itself.

      A rape victim deserves better.

      The baby is also a rape victim. The baby had a rapist for a father. Fathers are important. Denying the baby a father of integrity who cherishes the woman he gives a child makes the child the younger victim.

      It is simply flat-out WRONG to use capital punishment on the younger victim. This is true regardless of the bad circumstances for the mother.

      Read a book edited by David Reardon entitled Victims and Victors. Rape victims themselves tell you that abortion is NOT a suitable remedy for rape. Not only is it a second rape of the woman, but it often results in the rapist going unpunished because the evidence has been destroyed.

      I have known three women who were pregnant as a result of rape. One raised her baby and went on to have seven more children. She is closest to the son she bore as a result of rape. Another was a teenager who was gang raped as she took an afternoon walk in the neighborhood. She concealed her pregnancy from her parents until she was seven months (made easier by the fact she was chubby) so they wouldn’t force her to abort. Her parents helped her raise her child until she got married, and they’re all doing well. The third had an abortion. She had been in and out of mental hospitals afterward for ten years that I know about. She probably will never be able to have children (the abortion prevents that), and it destroyed her marriage. Her personality became warped, and she is probably incapable of having any kind of close relationship such as marriage, with anyone.

      A second act of violence, no matter WHAT the circumstances, is NOT THE ANSWER to the FIRST act of violence.

      It gives me a sense of outrage that people who want to kill babies want to use the horrors of rape to promote their agenda, and totally ignore what abortion on rape victims is all about. Don’t join them. Look at the picture of the child of rape on the Feminists for Life web site, and tell me, did that beautiful young woman deserve to be axe-murdered because her father was a rapist?

      Remember, an abortion cannot undo the violence against the mother. It can only perpetuate the violence on someone else. Neither of them deserve this. Both need the protection of the law. And all an abortion can do for the mother is make her an aggressor against her own child. Yes, that is HER child, too, and denying that diminishes both of them. It is her responsibility to protect her child, and our responsibility to help her find a better answer.

    • Jeff Schoonover

      Hmm. Well, that’s a good (albeit long winded) reply, but I’ll stand with what I said, and we can agree to disagree. 🙂

    • patgo

      Sorry, I can’t agree to disagree. A woman doesn’t deserve to be raped a second time by an axe-murderer, and a baby’s life is hanging by a thread. I must fight for both. You need to think this through. You aren’t doing rape victims any favors by advocating this be available. Seriously. Instead, let’s fight rape, not enable rapists (because abortion enables rapists). I teach women how to defend themselves. I teach martial arts. No abortion ever prevented or healed any rape. Let’s stop rape. Forget about subjecting women and children to violence as an “answer”. It is unjust. It is entirely possible that you are not aware of just how deep an invasion abortion is, of a woman’s body. It strikes at our very essence, our identity, and what we were designed for. Please think about it. You are helping axe-murderers make a killing, literally, by your advocacy. This has to stop! We have no right to abandon women and children like that, rape or not.

    • thomas

      patgo, I am sorry, but you come off sounding like a fanatic. I thoroughly understand what you are saying and agree to a certain point (to the top of the hill), but I cannot take that walk down the hill with you. I would not suggest that you don’t comprehend the extreme impact of rape on a man/woman, as I have no experience in the area myself, but I can both logically and emotionally understand that a woman who has been raped may come to the conclusion that aborting the life of the child may help their own mental well-being and future life. My only argument is that if, after valid counseling, it is determined that going through a raped induced pregnancy would be a greater detriment to the mother, either mentally or physically, I would not take issue with it. I say this not with any joy that an unborn child would be deprived life, but in recognition that we are all individuals and although we may all have the same ‘parts’, we do not all have the same ‘make-up’ or mental well-being. Again, I thoroughly understand what you are saying, but perhaps against Zo’s liking, I will use a spin-off to his argument, I read your book, I just don’t agree.

    • patgo

      Being a fanatic for the right to life is no vice. That said, here is something else to consider. A woman who reports a rape immediately will receive medical treatment that will tend to prevent pregnancy. If she doesn’t do this, she has, effectively, tacitly agreed to the consequences. She has then actually made a choice. So she is not without choices. Now there are several problems with this, but the basic principle is sound. The first problem is that many women don’t feel they can report a rape. That needs to change. We need to make it change. Unreported rapes leave rapists free to rape again, and they need to be stopped. Another problem is with the definition of “rape”. Suppose a woman consents to certain activity that naturally tends to lead to the certain act, but she doesn’t want to go that far. She may not send accurate signals to the man. The man may refuse to accept her signals. We have a culture that teaches some men that women want to be raped, and that “no” means “yes”. A woman may acquiesce at the time, and decide later that she didn’t really consent. This all muddies the waters. The best antidote I know for that particular problem is to impress on women the ABSOLUTE NECESSITY of protecting their virtue. They need to refuse to go to private places where sex can happen. We need to teach women that most men who will have sex with them outside of marriage don’t really love and cherish them, they are just using their woman. There is confusion about the sexuality of men, among women. Most young women have no idea about this. They need to be taught. We need to teach men to respect the virtue of women. In many instances of “date rape”, there is miscommunication. She doesn’t want the act, but he thinks she does, and he acts in good faith.

      But women bear nearly all the consequences of sex outside of marriage. We bear the pregnancies. We have far more devastating symptoms as a general rule, when we get an STD. And certain STDs result in a need for Caesarian to protect the baby from contracting the STD. A man who doesn’t respect a woman’s body enough to make a commitment to cherish her for a lifetime needs to be taught the paramount necessity of doing so. We women MUST insist on this. It is our own interest that is at stake.

      A woman may THINK that going through with a rape pregnancy will produce more mental and physical detriment than having an abortion. All the solid factual information tells us the opposite is true. Abortion is FAR MORE devastating both medically and emotionally than carrying a rape pregnancy to term. In David Reardon’s book, Victims and Victors, a number of women tell their stories. Many of the women who chose abortion regret it. None of the women who carried to term did. Not one. In my discussion with hundreds of women about their abortion experiences, or who didn’t have an abortion, I found only one woman who expressed regret she hadn’t had an abortion. She was mentally unstable, and when the government tried to take her child from her, she fought like a mother tiger to keep her child. I have met only two women who were completely and totally happy with having had an abortion, and both of them had become extremely ugly people. The vast majority of women either suffer in silent anguish, or go into denial and refuse to think about it. The problem with the latter group is that they can be broadsided by something that makes the whole thing come rushing forward, and that is when they are most vulnerable to committing suicide.

      Regardless of what people THINK, and acknowledging that carrying a rape baby to term is a devastating experience for some women, the truth is, even those women will be BETTER OFF if they carry, even though they don’t realize it. It is OUR responsibility to give them the support they need to get through the ordeal, and if it is still too much, to help them with adoption, and coming to terms with adoption.

      Call me a fanatic if you like. I don’t care. All of the people here who have indicated we should allow abortion for a rape child have been men. I think I am much closer to a female’s point of view on rape than any of you are. I have a basic understanding of what it means to be female that I simply cannot convey to you.

      Abortionists need to be put out of business. They’re all butchers, and they are all endangering WOMEN. If they are put out of business, who is going to perform an abortion on a rape victim? It seems like a problem that will solve itself. We still have the responsibility to support and help a pregnant rape victim, with meaningful support, to help her through. And when we don’t do that, we have no right to advocate her “right” to be raped with surgical instruments of death.

    • thomas

      Patgo, Just to be clear, I stated that you were coming off as a fanatic, I didn’t call you a fanatic; I would need more evidence (just a little) to make a straight-out accusation like that.
      You are free to believe what you believe and others are free to disagree. Happy Holidays!

    • patgo

      The distinction doesn’t matter, and I am not taking it personally. I am indeed free to believe what I do, and to promote it, because I advocate the non-aggression principle in a consistent manner. Others are not necessarily free to disagree. Since when did we tolerate people who advocate murder of innocent people? Do you really want a society where that is tolerated? We have one now, and it needs to be fixed. People used to say about a rogue who was going around doing harm, in the Wild West, “he needed killing.” Since when did ANYONE need killing just for existing, never even having had the opportunity to do anyone else any harm?

      I’d like to advocate arming unborn babies. They deserve to be able to defend themselves. Don’t you think?

      Happy Thanksgiving. I have a lot to be thankful for, and I hope you do, too.

    • thomas

      Patgo, your consistency is consistent, but is also the reason America was not established as an autocracy, theocracy, or the like. You are actually making me think abortion is a good idea and I was against abortion in nearly every case before I read your ‘consistent’ comments. I would suggest that if you are trying to change minds, you may be having an effect that is quite contrary to your intentions. Perhaps it your delivery…

    • patgo

      Thomas, don’t even go there. My delivery should have nothing to do with your convictions. Have your convictions because they are right, not because of how someone said something.

      Your message reminds me of something that happens occasionally. When 40 Days for Life starts to pray at an abortuary, occasionally some of the pro-aborts will organize a drive. They will ask people to pledge so much money for every person who shows up to pray. And then they taunt the people praying, saying, see, you are actually helping promote abortion.

      Do you see what I am getting at?

      Abortion is devastating for women. It kills innocent people. You should continue to oppose it. It is a violation of human rights and a vicious travesty. It has no place in a civilized society. It shouldn’t even be necessary to invoke the idea of a theocracy. This is the law built into the woman’s heart. It is innate. We deserve legal protection from butchers. We don’t have it. I have personally experienced the consequences, and so have hundreds of women I have talked to. I am tired of women getting hurt. I am passionate. I really don’t think being passionate about something that matters that much is a crime or a character flaw. Don’t try to pin the blame on me if you decide to stop supporting women and children. That dog don’t hunt.

      Don’t shoot the messenger. The message is valid.

  • bondroid

    SPOT ON ZO!! Some people only hear what they want to hear. If they don’t, they hear what isn’t there. Go figure.

  • Jennifer Archambault

    Thank you so much Zo, for calling out abortion for what it is! You will never regret fighting this great injustice. God bless, and keep saying it!

  • Kathy Dunton

    So like, uh, when are you going to run for president? You totally have my vote.

  • louisk

    Zoe, it is really really bad out there. Almost threw myself on my Samuria the other day. A 68 ear old female fellow worker asked if Obama was a Democrat or a republican. It is much much worse out there than you think. All I can do is keep sharing your word and yelling at the stupid ones I guess.

  • Tim Martin

    Hey Zo, Still love your site but you sure cherry picked the comments you responded to.

    Why don’t you try responding to this one.

    “Jesus did not ask His followers to take his words, convert them into laws, and then force everyone to abide by them; that is the opposite of the way in which He asked you to share His message of hope and salvation.”

    I legitimately would like to hear your response, this Libertarian has an open mind.

    My personal opinion is that social issues should not be legislated by either side.

    • gray_man

      the reason he doesn’t respond is because your comment is gibberish.
      Jesus said give unto Caesar what is Caesars …
      That includes making the laws of society and enforcing them.
      Jesus most certainly said “the natural man is the enemy of God.”
      The natural man is a lawless man.

    • Tim Martin

      That is a very excellent non-response, what a leap of logic.
      Jesus said give unto Caesar what is Caesars …, you don’t think this meant to follow laws?

      gray_man, this is exactly why Libertarians consider the religious right to be as dangerous as the Liberal progressives. You take liberties with you bible interpretations the same way they take liberties with our rights and interpretation of the constitution.
      How much Legislation did Jesus sponsor or advocate during his life time.

    • gray_man

      “That is a very excellent non-response, what a leap of logic.
      Jesus said give unto Caesar what is Caesars …, you don’t think this meant to follow laws?”

      Tim this is exactly why most from the “religious right” consider libertarians knuckle heads. The implication of give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s is to also follows the laws of Caesar. I just didn’t think it needed to be spelled out.
      Those from the “religious right” would have understood without my saying.
      I took no liberties with the Bible. Unless you somehow think quoting something is taking “liberties”.
      Like I said – knuckle head.
      Oh, and by the way, I am not from the “religious right”.

    • Tim Martin

      Well if Knuckle head is someone who implicitly applies logic and expects arguments to make sense then I am guilty.

      You apply completely circular reasoning and your last paragraph confirms my original comment.
      If calling names makes you feel better go ahead, but it puts you in great (Democrat) company.
      Anyone who uses logic as a basis for thought would be given a headache just reading your posts, perhaps you should try rereading them before you hit the post button.
      I have seen more coherent arguments out of Al Sharpton.

    • gray_man

      ROTFLMAO !!!
      Not one bit of circular reasoning.
      Nice try though … no wait … that stunk.
      you lost sonny.

    • Tim Martin

      Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.

      I’m done.

    • gray_man

      Oh … is that what you were trying to do ?
      Trying to teach someone something ?
      More LMAO.
      You didn’t try to teach anything.
      Head back to the sty with your pig and continue “teaching”.

    • Palm Bay Patriot

      Waxing indignant over incivility — that’s rich. Read over your own comments. And try being a little introspective here. It’s not always everyone else who has the problem.

    • gray_man

      I wasn’t waxing indignant, and butting in … now that is rich.
      I’ve noticed in my life that buttinskies quite often have a problem minding their own business.

  • Philip Haddad

    Another disappointing video Zo. You selectively picked comments to fit your narrative but didn’t highlight comments like mine testifying to the fact that there are libertarians who are followers of Christ, pro-life, pro-marriage, etc. and it does not bode well for you or the liberty you claim to espouse when you make crude stereotypes.

    To those of the conservaterian view, the porcine is not our symbol but the cross of Jesus/Liberty.

    While you can be funny, your joke concerning small l and capital L libertarianism fell flat on it’s face to anyone that actually knows the difference. I clarified the difference because they can be some confusion due to the fact that conservatives and the Founding Fathers have a semblance of libertarian philosophy, but that does not necessarily mean they would belong to the Libertarian party with all of their party planks. Consider that the Founding Fathers wanted a republican form of government but that did not mean they would have joined the Republican Party of today, the words are similar but carry different connotations.

    I desperately want to promote you as conservatives are in dire need of a coherent, sometimes humorous figure, minority being a bonus, that can rival the likes of Colbert, Stewart, and/or Maher. However, you are not suited to represent Christ or the conservative label when you involve yourself in the mire of cheap shots and mindless stereotypes, especially against those that would help us to advocate a return to the Bill of Rights/Constitution.

    I love you brother and pray that that Lord will overshadow your politics and not the other way around. Blessings.

  • Natureboy809

    Zo I like your videos and usually agree with most of what you say, but you missed the mark on this one by basically putting all libertarians in the same mold. Does every republican agree on every single issue? Of course not. Libertarians are no different. I can be libertarian, wanting as little government as possible, while still believing in a right to life that IMO abortion infringes on.

    As far as all of the references to Christianity, I too am a Christian. But I do not feel like I should force my beliefs and my sense of morality on others through government. If I do that, it makes me no better than a Muslim trying to force their beliefs and morality on others through Sharia Law.

    • Palm Bay Patriot

      Watch it. He gets mad when you say, “I usually like his videos, but …”

  • Palm Bay Patriot

    I don’t have to turn the other cheek anymore, because Jesus is coming someday to bring war. Did he really say that? By such logic, governments should be permitted to throw enemies into pits of burning fire, because … hey, that’s what Jesus will do someday.

  • Palm Bay Patriot

    Zo’s attempt to refute the disconnect between legalizing something and subsidizing it fails, miserably. Of course there’s a world of difference between abortion and guns — pointing out those differences in no way establishes your point. (BTW, I’m NOT pro-choice regarding abortion.) The argument stands: If a libertarian society legalizes, say, pot that doesn’t mean that same libertarian society will require taxpayers to cover the cost. If there’s a cause-effect between legalization and entitlement, then why didn’t the legality of alcohol lead to the government buying booze for people?

  • Palm Bay Patriot

    BTW, if libertarian doctrine confuses you, that’s cause for concern. No political philosophy is so easy to articulate and none is so consistent with itself. And let me help you on the “lower case” issue. An upper-case libertarian belongs to the Libertarian Party. A lower-case libertarian simply espouses the philosophy without necessarily being a party member. There. Fixed it for you.

  • Republic

    Very nice, intelligent, responsive article. Right on man.

    And meanwhile, the Dream Candidate to the Republican Party is nowhere to be found, or allowed to participate …

    View AmericaIdea for the only GOP 2016 Dream Candidate.

STAY IN THE LOOP
Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to get the lastest from Alfonzo Rachel!