Abortion Debate

By Thomas L. Knapp

Search for more articles by or about this columnist

On Saturday, September 14, 2002, 2:01 AM, Clint Fountain, clint@clintfountain.com writes:

Dear Thomas Knapp,

Libertarian Candidate for MO State Representative District 73, http://www.knapp2002.org/

I am a strong supporter of the Libertarian Party ideals. I am excited to see so many Libertarians running for Missouri offices this year. I support most of your views. I have one question regarding your views on abortion. I notice that you state that you would "vote for legislation to PROHIBIT abortion except to "save a mothers live or to prevent grievous bodily harm."

When asked "Will you vote to eliminate all state funding of abortions and abortion-related services?", you answered YES.

When asked "Would you VOTE AGAINST state funding of training programs that train medical students and residents in the techniques of elective abortion?", you answered YES.

It appears your views are out of line with the Libertarian Party view on abortion. The National Platform of the Libertarian Party states as follows:

Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.... It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements, and/or home births.

Why is your view on abortion so out of line with your party's view, yet you still maintain affiliation with them? If you actually did as you indicated and voted according to your views against abortion, wouldn't this misrepresent the Libertarian Party's platform and ideals of "dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom?"

Your response is eagerly anticipated.

Thank you for your time and good luck with your campaign efforts.

Sincerely,
Clint Fountain

References
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/womerigh.html
http://tlknapp.freeservers.com/knapp2002/questionnaires/mortl.html
http://tlknapp.freeservers.com/knapp2002/questionnaires/eagleforum.html

On Thursday, September 19, 2002, 2:32PM, Tom Knapp, thomaslknapp@yahoo.com responds:

Yes, You Are A Libertarian
 
by Thomas L. Knapp

Within a membership organization as small as the Libertarian Party, ideological disagreements tend to be magnified until they become tempests in our little teapot. Occasionally, these agitations threaten to boil over and scorch the hands of those who hold our party at arms' length while they decide whether they're with us or against us.

I'm the last one to walk away from a debate -- and, usually, the first one to press the "purist" line on most issues -- but at some point we have to ask ourselves just what we're trying to accomplish and whether the things we are doing are helpful in accomplishing them.

The fact is that, usually, these tempests in the teapot are tempests in a teapot, and should be treated accordingly. When someone who favors less government and more freedom comes to the LP, the first thing they should hear is "Yes, you are a libertarian."

This person may agree with the LP's platform on every subject except, say, immigration. Or abortion. Or drugs. The fact that they disagree on one or two issues is less important than that they agree with us on most things. And, chances are, they agree with us for one simple reason:

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.

-- L. Neil Smith

This is what most people believe. This is the first rule that human beings learn, albeit in attenuated forms: Keep your hands to yourself. Don't take other people's stuff. Don't throw the first punch. It's the basis rule that makes all good things in human society possible.

99.9% of individuals who might be interested in joining, working with or voting for the Libertarian Party or its candidates believe this viscerally, down in their guts. They put it into practice every day. It's how they live their lives.

Everything else is just detail. And, while details are important, they can be attended to in a more leisurely manner. When a child first learns to feed himself, we cheer him on for using a fork. We don't scold him for not yet being able to cut his own steak.

Someone who wants more freedom and less government, but who believes that some taxation is necessary, isn't "not a libertarian." He or she is a libertarian who, to be sure, may be mistaken, but who is on the right track.

Do we turn this "mistaken libertarian" away at the door? Or do we accept his or her support, knowing that, over time, he or she is likely to "get it" on the one issue that is a sticking point?

For that matter, there is frequent debate within our own circles over whether various planks of the LP's platform accurately embody this "Non-Aggression Principle." Do those on the losing side of those fights, within the party's process, assume that the majority of their fellow party members are "not really libertarians?" Generally they don't. If they believed that, they'd shake the dust from their feet as they left. Instead, they assume good will coupled with flawed reasoning, and keep on plugging away to resolve the dispute.

A funny thing happens when someone starts hanging around with Libertarians. In between the arguments, they start taking a more careful look at their own beliefs and trying to justify them against ours. If our ideas are the better ones -- and I believe they are, or I wouldn't be here -- then those ideas win the battle for the hearts and minds of those who consider them.

Acting in a manner consistent with an idea, as Smith demands in his definition quoted above, isn't accomplished through an instantaneous conversion. It's an ongoing process that may or may not result in some kind of mystical "perfection." We do not hold that a mathematician who makes a mistake on one long division problem isn't "really" a mathematician, or that he has rejected the decimal system, do we?

If the Libertarian Party is serious about changing the face of America, we'll go out of our way to gather in the support of all those who are substantially on our side -- and we'll make it clear to them that we are on their side, too. That's what politics is all about.