Photo by Carol Moore
Few topics evoke such heated emotions and angry disputes as the legality of abortion, generally permitted in the United States since the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, and affirmed by the 1992 ruling Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
For libertarians, the issue can be particularly difficult. Two bedrock principles – that everybody has the right to control their own body, and that the state should prevent and punish acts of aggression – seem to come into conflict. This tension is reflected in the Libertarian Party’s platform plank on abortion, which acknowledges “that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides.”
That doesn’t stop the party from taking a firmly pro-choice stance, continuing: “We believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
A change, or a removal, or status quo, for the party’s pro-choice plank?
Whether or not the party’s position on abortion should be changed, or simply done away with, is the subject of ongoing dispute within the party. At the 2016 national convention, the delegates overwhelmingly shot down an effort by anti-abortion members to delete the party’s platform plank.
Obviously I find the “Ethics of being a tease” a fascinating subject. Putting writing article about it on my “Do List”. Any guys who want to write me with ideas about male or female teases can contact me via [email protected]
Thomas Knapp wrote (quoting my sorely out of date carolmoore.net) “There are a lot of Carol Moores out there on the web …”
What’s even funnier is this one who is now probably most famous one since she’s gotten involved in scandal with Bernie Sanders’ wife. Worse, she looks A LOT like me 10 years ago! https://www.facebook.com/carol.moore.33449
Wonder if she was a hot sex tease in her 20s like I was. (A promiscuous sexually aggressive tease for social fun NOT political ambition and NOT a married one who never puts out, that I know about. Just to make another issue here a bit clearer.)
OK, as an earthy taurus the bull I still love talking about sex anyway, including sometimes with horny 20+ somethings on facebook. (Abortion issue keeps bring up SEX issue, after all.)
However, if they get excited enough to check out my FB page they see I’m just a chubby SEXagenarian. And at 69 only have six months before I’m a boring SEPTagenarian. boo hoo…
It does matter if life begins at conception or birth, abortion is not murder. It is self-defense.
In the USA it is more dangerous to become a mother than it is to become a cop. Per capita more women die from complication from pregnancy and child birth than cops die while being a cop.
My hat is off to all the women who choose to accept this danger to their lives to bring another person into the world, but in no way should any women be forced to accept this danger to her life against her will.
“There are a lot of Carol Moores out there on the web …”
There was a Carol Moore who ran as a Socialist Workers Party candidate for public office in the 1970s. The LP’s Carol Moore claims to not be that one, and if I’m not mistaken the SWP Carol Moore was a woman of color. So that narrows it down by one, anyway.
There are a lot of Carol Moores out there on the web…
yep…your name doesn’t link you to any identity that I would recognize if I passed you on the street. wtf are you crowing about?
DL: Well, at least Harlos has the chutzpuh to NOT go by some alias…
well, yeah, but the astute observer will note that in the quoted text you were talking about hot pink hair and cleavage…
dl wrote: “It doesn’t help your argument to resort personal attacks . And her argument is weak enough to attack it on principle w/o any need to stoop to that level.”
Like human reality and interaction is ONLY intellectual and has NOTHING to do with bad motivations, force and fraud, manipulation, egotism, crazy religious views and all sorts of irrational nonsense.
Of course, those engage in the most irrationality often are the ones who want to avoid discussions of irrational behavior and lowly motivations.
Maybe, although I’m a bit burned out on the whole caucus thing in general at this point.
“[Caryn Ann Harlos] comes off as a Prohibitionist, despite her denials”
Only to people who consider philosophical disagreement to be tantamount to a call for prohibition of the behavior being discussed.
“Who would it be who writes a big article against the LP abortion platform plank for IPR and promotes it all over? Either rapid anti-abortionists – or people who want to bring rabid anti-abortionists into the party.”
Or people who want a plank that actually takes a clear position instead of a load of gobbledygook that implies the government should leave Scott Roeder alone.
It doesn’t help your argument to resort personal attacks . And her argument is weak enough to attack it on principle w/o any need to stoop to that level.
I don’t think you read to the end of Ms. Harlos comments there either.
While Harlos initial comments are a bit ambiguous, at the end she’s stating that neither using the state vs. private bigotry NOR celebrating private bigotry are very libertarian.
Holy cow, I think Carol Moore is trying to take the comment length crown from Andy Jacobs. I got this far:
“Since Ms. Harlos presents herself as a radical, one assumes she does NOT want arch-conservatives in party. ”
You must have missed her comments in this thread and subsequent discussion thereof….
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/11/the-jack-news-libertarians-vs-the-alt-right-heres-where-hans-hermann-hoppe-gets-it-wrong/
It appears that the radicalism of the “radical caucus” is now arm in arm with the Hoppean alt right archconservatives of the so called Mises Caucus. Maybe it’s time for a Libertarian Caucus in the Libertarian Party? The radical caucus seems to have become the Radical Right caucus.
Ms. Harlos complains that she has been unfairly attacked ideologically and personally. She refuses to admit that her own behavior RESULTS in the negative feedback (and even downright mockery) she often receives.
1. She comes off as a Prohibitionist, despite her denials:
Who would it be who writes a big article against the LP abortion platform plank for IPR and promotes it all over? Either rapid anti-abortionists – or people who want to bring rabid anti-abortionists into the party. The latter also may support anti-libertarian positions regarding military intervention, immigration, victimless crimes, etc. (Think Aaron Starr who pushed to get the plank removed at the 2016 convention as being in the latter camp.)
Since Ms. Harlos presents herself as a radical, one assumes she does NOT want arch-conservatives in party. So one must assume anti-abortionism remains a strong motivation.
This is especially evidenced by her emphasis on what she describes as the “abortion one minute before birth” position of the Association of Libertarian Feminists and other pro-choicers. The only issue she seems interested in addressing.
Now a lot of pro-choicers might admit the “right” to do that but none, including the Association, would lead with or emphasize that argument! Most would say it is both inaccurate and insulting to assert that women had late term abortions capriciously. Health of the mother, severe deformity of the fetus, or ignorance of pregnancy are the primary reasons for late term abortions.
Harlos statement above is particularly telling: “And though I did not argue for prohibition, there is nothing inconsistent about a voluntaryist arguing for prohibition against that any more than laws (and it is dealt with in the article) against rape or theft or arson.” In other words, IF she chose to make those arguments, she could make them. Her way of telling prohibitionists she’s on her side and will prove it when she gets the chance. The fact that she has placed herself twice on the Radical caucus platform committee (which rejected an abortion plank) and on both the national and Colorado LP platform committees remains worrisome, even if she continues to claim she will not “argue” for deleting the plank.
2. Harlos personal abortion prohibitionist history matters.
Any Harlos argument she is just engaging in intellectual debate is questionable given her personal history. That is as a woman who had two abortions with no regrets, but on becoming a Born Again Christian suddenly developed massive guilt and regret. So she became not only an anti-abortion activist protesting outside clinics but began a personal anti-abortion ministry to women. It’s goal evidently was to make them feel as bad about their abortions as she came to feel about hers after she became a Christian!
And let’s not forget early in her party career Harlos posted under her Christian ministry name “Dee Dee Warren”. She went straight to the pro-life libertarians facebook group (liked by several thousand people) and tried to organize a movement to dump the plank. When that effort failed, and after she started only publishing under her current name, she wrote the big article against the abortion platform plank for IPR.
3. Harlos flamboyant and “teasy” modus operandi draws attention to her person (and her hypocrisy).
There’s the Hot Pink hair and ever present Statue of Liberty Crown. There’s the showing of lots of ample cleavage in photos and videos and at least one meme, and joking about it with guys on her personal page. (I did a screen shot of one “out there” personal thread). She still receives comments about her boobs in her cleavage video blog postings.
Harlos considers criticism of her using sex to advance her cause – which many pro-choicers believe includes outlawing abortion – to be cruel harassment. But if political “leaders” can’t take criticism, they are in the wrong game.
The fact that Harlos’ buddy arch-prohibitionist Melissa Hamilton immediately started making “pro-life” deep cleavage memes to defend Harlos only brought more attention to the issue. It took some repeated inquiries, but Hamilton did finally openly admit she believes that abortion IS murder and should be enforced by prosecutors NOW as murder. But lots of people do NOT know that about Hamilton, because of her obfuscations, and think she just wants voluntary means of helping women who want to keep their babies.
Ms. Hamilton’s behavior is typical of a number of abortion prohibitionists in the party who hide their true views from libertarians, creating a climate of distrust among pro-choice libertarians for Ms. Harlos assertions. Any other accusations against her of dishonesty only increases that distrust. Old timers will remember how in 1987 Ron Paul entered the party telling us he wanted abortion illegal after “viability” and wanted the states to deal with the issue. What he dishonestly omitted was that to him “viability” meant conception! And that he wanted a constitutional amendment against abortion that would be enforced by the states! That’s the reason pro-choicers went nuts against him in 1987. (Today at least he’s dropped promoting the amendment!) So the distrust of prohibitionists goes back many years.
4. Questions about Harlos rise to power and paranoid reaction to criticism
Harlos flamboyance, along with constant self-promotion, hard work, and a personality that wins friends among enough individuals, led to Harlos’ quick rise up the LP hierarchy. I’m all for women making quick advancement. But I remain suspicious when I fear the ambition is driven in part in service of restricting the liberty of the female half the human race!!!
Harlos means of replying to criticism tends to be hyper-reactive in a paranoid victimization vein. The exchange above with Andy Craig is a good example of that. Is the paranoia because she’s afraid the depth of her anti-abortionism, continuing desire for prohibition and prosecution of women and service providers, and even covert organizing activity, finally will come to light?
My emails are now scandalous. Neat. (Though I half assumed Harlos would share them anyway, so I didn’t say anything in them that I’m bothered to see reprinted. I’m afraid you’ll have to digger much deeper into my inbox to find what me being scandalously “belligerent” looks like.)
As I patiently explained to her at some length, I did not change the article in response to her demand, because the original description of her essay was simply not inaccurate. I could explain why, but since she’s already shared my explanation above, I’ll just refer you to that. She was offered, twice, the opportunity to publish a response, and declined. I presume because she would have had to respond on the merits of the topic, and not just banshee-screaming about what an evil awful no-good meanie Andy Craig is.
I would sincerely hope that members of the LNC have better things to worry about than kvetching about who dared disagree with something they wrote, or which party member blocked them on Facebook after tiring of their cry-bully angry-mob antics. I know I do.
Luke
Luke, you forgot about leaving a link to some shady you tube video.
I have a personal productivity policy of venting my spleen for one day and then moving on. Its not inviolable, but it is like the Pirate’s Code – a guideline. As such I don’t expect to be debating this point further.
All that was needed was a simply footnote. That was not only the right thing to do in response to me, but also in all fairness to the readers who will rely on that information.
Have you ever heard Paul sing? Nails on a chalkboard sound better.
Hey Luke, why don’t you and the other mystery posters, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, form a gospel singing group with Paul? Your names have a gospel theme to them.
Andy Jacobs long version
blah blah blah …..blah blah blah… blah blah blah blah
Andy Jacobs short summary
You are correct, I did not read the article but I will leave long comments in response to the title.
You shouldn’t expect Andy Craig to be fair or even accurate for that matter.
if my father were alive today he would claim parents should have the right to abort their children up to the age of 60….. always just older then my oldest sibling…. there might be a pattern…
“So it’s not the entire party. And I would have an easier time defending that position consistent w/ libertarian principle than the position of forced child birth AND forced parental obligation.”
If a person is flying you in their airplane, or giving you a ride in their car, or giving you a ride in their ship, and part of the way through the journey, they decide that they don’t want to give you a ride, should they be able to throw you out of the plane, car, or ship, even if it means that you’d be pretty certain to die as a result? I mean, the plane, car, or ship, is their property, and since they can do whatever they want with their property, if they decide they no longer want you on it, who cares what happens to you, right?
As for parents who neglect their children, say putting them at risk of death (via starvation, etc…), they are pieces of shit as human beings, and it would be morally justifiable for somebody to intervene, or even to take their kids from them. Such individuals who neglect their children and put them at risk of death ought to then be shunned from society. If a libertarian society were to exist, it would have to consist of rugged individuals who actually had some backbone (as in people who are willing to take action for liberty, which would include physically fighting for liberty, not just talking about it, or sitting on one’s rear end and posting about it online), and they’d have to actually have a justice system (a voluntary justice system, like the one I described in The Libertarian Zone article that is posted in IPR archives), which would include shunning people from society.
So I guess you didn’t read the article and are just replying to the headline.
Abortion prohibition is not indefensible from a libertarian perspective if one believes that life begins at conception. If life begins at conception, abortion is murder, which is an act of aggression, which is a violation of libertarian principles.
Also, as I have pointed out here before, the people who say that they want to keep the government out of abortion, do not really mean it, because they want to use the guns of the state to protect abortion providers, which means that they want the state to sanction abortion, much like the state sanctioned chattel slavery at one time (fugitive slave laws, slave patrols, etc…).
I do not expect the abortion issue to be “solved” or settled anytime soon, if ever (perhaps advancements in science could solve it, but who knows), and frankly, I think that we have other more pressing issues on which we ought to focus, but I think that it is intellectually dishonest for anyone to act as though there are no libertarian arguments against abortion.
The complete willingness of other libertarians to twist the words of other on this issue is a bigger shame than nearly anything in the movement.
No, I explicitly pointed out that to MOST PEOPLE there is a difference – that most are not troubled by early abortions and grow increasingly troubled as development continues. Making them equivalent is not implied or stated. But do tell me what I was intending. That’s cute.
You truncate my quote – I said unfettered abortion up through the moment of birth. The key part being “up through the moment of birth.”
And once again. Citation needed. Where did I claim no one would defend it so that your personal avocation would be relevant? OBVIOUSLY some would, I was responding to a group that did.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/08/caryn-ann-harlos-abortion-and-the-libertarian-conscience/
What answer does the Libertarian Party Platform give to the question: “Can I decide to kill my baby one minute before natural full-term childbirth would begin?”
Presently, the answer would be “It’s up to you.” And that, to the vast majority of Americans of all persuasions (including ardent defenders of earlier abortion rights), is monstrous.
It is pretty clear that the example you cited was not as presented as a rare anomaly that you would be opposed to but rather as the logical conclusion of unfettered abortion implied by the platform.
I would defend it. So it’s not the entire party. And I would have an easier time defending that position consistent w/ libertarian principle than the position of forced child birth AND forced parental obligation.
I haven’t went back to Chrome.
I don’t even want to delve into the actual subject right now but are you still getting malware problems?
to wit, from the ALF:
==If a woman has a right to abort a fetus at any point prior to birth, this also implies the right to terminate the life of the fetus as well. Abortion is not a discrete act; it is an ongoing process that begins within the. woman’s body and continues outside it. If she has a right to the procedure of abortion, she has a right to the entire procedure—otherwise the so-called right is meaningless. Since the purpose of abortion is not just to terminate the pregnancy but to avoid bearing the child, what is necessary is not just the removal of the fetus (otherwise she could just bring it to term and give it up for adoption), but its death.[13]===
And
==The libertarian principle of private property logically entails a woman’s right to control her pregnancy totally until the point of birth dictated by natural forcesÑthat is, until a normal or premature delivery or caesarian section. This includes the right to terminate the life of the fetus during the abortion procedure at any time prior to delivery.[14]===
Copiously footnoted.
Yes Richard I agree. BUT if you read the original piece you will see I was responding to the Association of Libertarian Feminists. I did not pull that argument out of thin air as a strawman. I was responding to an actual argument from a respected libertarian group.
The best way to minimize the desire for any woman to have an abortion is to make birth control devices of all kinds freely and easily available to every female. The Netherlands does this and thus has an extremely low abortion rate.
The theoretical point about a woman suddenly deciding to have an abortion one minute before giving birth is useful for helping anyone organize his or her thoughts. But realistically, this just wouldn’t happen, unless one minute before birth, the mother learns that the baby has a major deformity or irreversible health problem. In countries with sophisticated health systems, this news would almost certainly be known substantially earlier than one minute before delivery begins.
Excuse me. One minute was my example. OH WHAT A PROHIBITIONIST!!!!!
Since most will not go to the original link, here is EXACTLY what I said:
===The present Platform presents an extremely volatile (and to most minds, disturbing) answer to a completely logical question, to wit:
What answer does the Libertarian Party Platform give to the question: “Can I decide to kill my baby one minute before natural full-term childbirth would begin?”
Presently, the answer would be “It’s up to you.” And that, to the vast majority of Americans of all persuasions (including ardent defenders of earlier abortion rights), is monstrous. ===
==Well, sort of..===
No precisely.
== That article linked to an article you wrote here that described AoD as a “monstrous position.” ===
Citation needed. What I described as monstrous was ONE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE IN WHICH 99% OF THE PARTY WOULD AGREE WITH ME. Two minutes before natural childbirth. That is not being a prohibitionist unless Andy would describe Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as prohibitionists because I daresay that they both would agree, and Gary’s public position was on banning after viability. Everyone knows what prohibitionists was intended to mean there- or the false impression it is intended. All abortions outlawed. Or at least a substantial majority of them. That is not my position. And has not been since I have a been a libertarian.
==Your email correspondence indicates that you are open to restrictions, though like a good politician, you also apparently hedge on the matter.===
Because I don’t know. I don’t give stances on things that I cannot yet defend. That is not being a politician. It is being honest. Which is the opposite of politician in most cases.
If saying that killing a fetus two minutes before natural childbirth is monstrous than the whole Part is infested with prohibitionists!!! Which is ABSURD.
Well, sort of.. That article linked to an article you wrote here that described AoD as a “monstrous position.” Your email correspondence indicates that you are open to restrictions, though like a good politician, you also apparently hedge on the matter.
RE: the referenced posted article here. I wrote an old piece
[Abortion on Demand is the only Defensible Libertarian Position]
https://rulingclass.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/abortion-on-demand-is-the-only-defensible-libertarian-position/
that addressed your dilemma RE: parental obligation. Summary: AoD does resolve the dilemma. Pro-life restrictionism does not. The pro-life position only forces an unwilling female to carry a pregnancy to term. it doesn’t confer parental responsibility on the female post birth. So the female, after giving birth, can get up and leave the hospital and then call the American Family Association to come pick up the infant.
RE: what is and what is not palatable to the American public.Depending on how it is presented, I concede AoD may not be a particularly popular position. Then again, the abortion==murder view carried to its logical enforcement conclusion is not exactly a palatable view with the public, either.
How rich is this? After misrepresenting me in a published article, Andy Craig now proceeds to publicly slander me and blocks me for simply tagging him on my original complaint (as a courtesy). Since he is accusing me of of “wildly misrepresenting” our email exchange in public, I don’t consider the email exchange nor my PM in complaint to be private and will publish them. You be the judge if his behaviour is appropriate and if I “wildly misrepresented” our exchange. His response to me was not that of a professional writer.
Andy’s first email to me after my public complaint on TJN
My responses:
Our last exchange:
and my PM – I will block out the name of to whom I sent it since that person didn’t go anywhere publicly slandering me. The first sentence is blocked since it references a prior public discussion that identifies this person.
So dear readers, what did I say that was a wild misrepresentation or a falsehood. WHAT? That his last response to me was belligerent and unprofessional? It was. He claimed I just “didn’t like what he wrote.” No. What he wrote was WRONG and refusing to even put in a note that the subject contacted him to dispute is as unprofessional as it gets. This is a news site backed by big dollars and connected with our prior ticket. I expect better.
Now you see one reason why I wanted ALL committee emails to be public. Because things like this happen.
My position was misrepresented in this article and I am currently speaking with Editors at the Jack News for a correction. The author has refused – apparently believing that I don’t know my own position or what I meant by what I wrote. If he wants to insist that is what is implied by the article fine, but a notation that I dispute that and it is NOT my position should be appended to that article. Here are the public exchanges:
From me:
From Drew Clark, Editor:
From me:
In another thread from me: