Apparently, Lots of Libertarians Don't Think Women are People Either

[paft.livejournal.com]

So The Mercatus, a right-wing think tank, has declared North Dakota -- which recently passed an incredibly restrictive anti-abortion law, one of the free-est of all the fifty states

Once again, we see that when right wing libertarians use the word "liberty," they're using their own extra-special definition of it. As Salon has pointed out reproductive freedom apparently isn't even entered into the calculations,

Women, you see, just don't count.



*

Comments

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Well it has a ton to do with it. The premise of libertarianism rests largely on autonomous agency. Rocks can't defend themselves either but then again they have no moral worth in a libertarian framework. See Kant's The Metaphysics of Morals

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I wasn't aware you were making a libertarian argument on this. Regardless, it's not as if there's a singular thinking by libertarians on the unborn.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm not advancing an argument here. I wanted specific sourcing from you on a claim you made.
So you say. Those concerned with the rights of the unborn disagree, which is why this was left out.

replying to:
The unborn has no agency (yet) and is consequently not a factor in any actually rational calculation of this type.
Kant is pretty fundamental to the ontological premises that libertarians treat as gospel and you were the one that attached the liberal concept of "freedom" to the unborn. You're free to argue that unborn have rights, but couching those rights in terms of "freedom" inevitably returns us to Kant and/or Locke. So once again... Do you have a source for your claim or not? I'm genuinely curious.