LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2004
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE MICHAEL BADNARIK'S POOR HANDLING OF ABORTION
ISSUEDuring the campaign for the nomination Michael Badnarik placed at least three different statements on abortion on his web page. Two are below. While the first two were rants against abortion that seemed to infer he wanted it illegal, the final one at least said the government should out of the issue. His final campaign web pages on the abortion issue also were in line with the Libertarian Platform. And he did finally change his position on the widely read Vote-Smart.Org from "all abortion should be illegal" to a more libertarian position. However, his words often strayed from that path, from the day after he received the nomination when he denied on CSPAN that the party had a platform position on abortion to several interviews where he made the unproven claimed that "the party was split" or that "49% of the party believe the baby owns its own body" or mentioning "states rights" again. Several articles illustratehis meanderings on the topic.
PRE-NOMINATION STATEMENTS ON ABORTION
Position
on web page as of late October 2003
http://www.badnarik.org/issues/abortion.html
Abortion
This is, without a doubt, the most hotly debated issue in the political arena. Nothing evokes a more passionate and sometimes angry discussion than the abortion issue. I do not expect to significantly influence what has already been said, however this is always one of the first questions I am asked as a candidate.
First of all, I feel it is important to avoid religious arguments when engaged in a political discussion, for the very simple reason that arguments of that type only have merit to people who share that point of view. In order to generate any type of consensus in a debate such as this, it is necessary to come up with a secular argument that allows everyone, including atheists, to agree with the conclusion.
As a strong believer in freedom of action, I used to hold a pro-choice position, arguing that the government has no authority to tell a woman what she can or can not do with her body. The government does not own the woman's body - she does. (Please read my position paper on Rights versus privileges.)
In my eight hour Constitution class I argue that a child has a right to life based on the fact that even a newborn child owns his or her own body. Eventually I realized that the child must assume ownership of that body at some point in time. Placing the assumption of ownership anywhere in the middle of the pregnancy would obviously be an arbitrary decision, and is therefore unsupportable. The only two choices remaining would be to place the assumption of ownership at the moment of birth, or at conception. If we assume that a child does not take ownership of their body until the moment of birth, we must then argue that mothers can abort the baby any time before the delivery. I do not know anyone heartless enough to seriously advance this argument. (I do not doubt that such people exist, however.)
The only logical conclusion that remains is that children assume ownership of their bodies at the time of conception. This does not completely resolve the debate because someone is sure to argue that the baby is now "trespassing" within the woman's body, and she can therefore "evict it", demanding that it live somewhere else. I'm sure this debate will continue; however I hope that this "property ownership" argument will help us to keep religion out of an already sticky subject.
Although I now hold the same position as pro-life activists, I still consider myself to be pro-choice. The only difference is that I now feel that the choice must be made BEFORE conception, and not as a backup plan after conception has already occurred.
http://www.badnarik.org/issues/abortion.html
Abortion
This is, without a doubt, the most hotly debated issue in the political arena. Nothing evokes a more passionate and sometimes angry discussion than the abortion issue. I do not expect to significantly influence what has already been said, however this is always one of the first questions I am asked as a candidate.
First of all, I feel it is important to avoid religious arguments when engaged in a political discussion, for the very simple reason that arguments of that type only have merit to people who share that point of view. In order to generate any type of consensus in a debate such as this, it is necessary to come up with a secular argument that allows everyone, including atheists, to agree with the conclusion.
As a strong believer in freedom of action, I used to hold a pro-choice position, arguing that the government has no authority to tell a woman what she can or can not do with her body. The government does not own the woman's body - she does. (Please read my position paper on Rights versus privileges.)
In my eight hour Constitution class I argue that a child has a right to life based on the fact that even a newborn child owns his or her own body. Eventually I realized that the child must assume ownership of that body at some point in time. Placing the assumption of ownership anywhere in the middle of the pregnancy would obviously be an arbitrary decision, and is therefore unsupportable. The only two choices remaining would be to place the assumption of ownership at the moment of birth, or at conception. If we assume that a child does not take ownership of their body until the moment of birth, we must then argue that mothers can abort the baby any time before the delivery. I do not know anyone heartless enough to seriously advance this argument. (I do not doubt that such people exist, however.)
The only logical conclusion that remains is that children assume ownership of their bodies at the time of conception. This does not completely resolve the debate because someone is sure to argue that the baby is now "trespassing" within the woman's body, and she can therefore "evict it", demanding that it live somewhere else. I'm sure this debate will continue; however I hope that this "property ownership" argument will help us to keep religion out of an already sticky subject.
Although I now hold the same position as pro-life activists, I still consider myself to be pro-choice. The only difference is that I now feel that the choice must be made BEFORE conception, and not as a backup plan after conception has already occurred.
Position
on web page as of late May 2004
http://www.badnarik.org/issues/abortion.html
Abortion
http://www.badnarik.org/issues/abortion.html
Abortion