link to original reddit post by /u/LibertarianBro101

I’m a proud Libertarian, who believes in free-marketism, the right to bear arms, all of that stuff.

My two biggest things I can’t come to the determination in are the “right” to abortion, and meat-eating with regards to the NAP.

1.) Abortions.

I’m loosely religious. Don’t go to church, don’t read the Bible but I believe in God and am basically Christian in my beliefs. I’m also a bit of a traditionalist. Anyway, I was thinking about Abortions the other day and a string of thoughts popped up in my head that changed the way I thought about them. I was focused mainly on when a fetus is considered conscious. However, I’ve concocted a different way of thinking about it that leads me to not be as pro-abortion as I used to be.

Basically, the fetus is not forcing itself into you in consensual sex. Whether it is intentional or not, you are getting impregnated through your own choice to have sex which always has the probability in ending in an unintended pregnancy. The argument against disallowing women the right to abort is that it’s a violation of the NAP and that the state is basically forcing you to bear a child. The problem is that the state didn’t force you to become impregnated in consensual sex, it was actually your own doing. Sex is Russian roulette if you really boil in down to the nitty-gritty.

Even aside from the state, people make the argument that the fetus itself is violating the NAP, and is basically forcing the mother into conception in an unintended-pregnancy situation. The problem I see with that is that a sperm cell cannot initiate force, nor did it choose to enter her body.

And the argument of “no person should have a right to the labor or care of another”— so basically the landlord argument; if you are a landlord, your tenant should have no right to housing provided by you— you should be able to evict the tenant if you don’t want them in your property. In that same light, you should be able to evict your fetus through an abortion. The problem I see with this, which is a bit connected to the last point I made, is that the fetus never chose to enter your body. You allowed it in through engaging in unsafe sex, you forcing it into conception and then you forcing it out through an abortion. Connecting back to the landlord argument, it would be tantamount to me pointing a gun to your head and forcing you into my apartment, then claiming that you are trespassing and that you have no right to be on my property, and me shooting you as a result in order to protect my property.

Even that aside, connecting a bit to previous points made, a tenant actually has the conscious and physical capability to leave your house on your demand, and a fetus does not. So even everything else I said aside, the comparison is unfair. The tenant chose to enter the landlords apartment, the sperm cell/soon-to-be fetus did not. The tenant has the full capability to leave the apartment, assuming they’re not for some reason physically impaired, on life support or bleeding out in the apartment. A fetus does not have the physical or cognitive capability to exit the womb.

All of this doesn’t apply to rape, by the way; if you are raped and become impregnated, you did not decide to have sex and did not willingly take the risk of becoming impregnated. Therefore, you should have the right to bodily autonomy.

And just so we all know, responsibility is a factor with everything in life. If you blow all of your money at the casino, that’s on you. There is no cutting corners. The stipulation to freedom of the people is that when you make a mistake, no one is there to save you, and your right to get out of the situation does not exist.

To be completely honest, I’m just a bit ecstatic that I concocted this argument so that I can now justify my limited-abortion stance that I have due to my religious beliefs.

Anyway, I’m rambling. Next topic...

2.) Eating Meat

I came up with this idea when I was watching a Vegan Gains video in YouTube (I don’t know if anyone here watched his videos) where he was debating the ethics behind eating meat, and it got me thinking about it with regards to the NAP. Just to note, I eat meat. Mostly a pescatarian. I’m just interested in rationalizing this. I’m not giving up my tuna fish or my chicken nuggies. Don’t ask me to. Anyway...

Is eating meat a violation of the NAP? Is killing an animal directly in order to eat it’s meat a violation of the NAP?

Let’s consider a situation with a dog...

My dog is in my yard. It’s behind a secured fence, can’t jump over or get out in any way, and it’s growling at a mailman. The mailman hears the growling, turns to the dog, draws his gun and kills the dog out of fear that the dog posed a threat to his life. Is that a violation of the NAP? There are two things to consider here. 1.) Does the NAP apply to dogs and other animals?, and 2.) Was the mailman justified in shooting the dog in that situation?

1.) I would have to assume that the NAP does apply to dogs, as it does with humans. What would be the basis in a Libertarian society for protecting the rights of animals if not?

2.) In that situation, the animal didn’t pose a direct threat and was secured. I would say that the shooting was unjustified.

Well, now that brings me to my other situation, but this time with a cow.

A cow is grazing in the grass, and the farmer comes up and shoots it in the head with a shotgun. Not a very smart way to kill a cow since you now have to lug it back to the barn to do the business with it, but that’s beside the point. Is the farmer violating the cow’s rights by violating the NAP? Well, I would ask the same 2 questions here. 1.) Does the NAP apply to cows?, and 2.) Was the farmer justified in shooting the cow? - AKA, did the cow pose a threat to the farmer that would justify shooting it.

1.) I would say that the same way that a dog is protected under the NAP, so is a cow.

2.) In that particular situation, I would say that the cow did not impose a threat— but that the farmer planned to kill the cow eventually regardless of the threat it posed to him.

I would conclude, personally, that killing the cow, or a chicken, or whatever is a violation of the NAP. I’m basically split half and half on whether or not eating it alone after buying it from the store is a violation of the NAP.

Anyway, this is getting a bit long. I’ll end it here. I’m interested in what you guys think about this.