Protection Of Life
The following dialogue is an email exchange with Sean Thorne, who is running for the Alaska Senate on a Libertarian platform. Mr. Thorne encourages the public to contact him with questions and concerns. I claim allegiance to one kingdom only. The Kingdom of Christ. I do not believe that the State, in any form, is God’s agent for saving souls, I am interested in one’s political ideology to the extent that it may or may not align with the biblical commands to do justly, love mercy, and to walk humbly with God.
Greetings Sean. My name is Greg Cheney. As a Christian, I believe that the Libertarian platform provides the best safeguards for my family to be able to live as we choose. I realize that in a genuinely free society, others will live in ways that I disagree with, but that is their choice. I can seek to persuade my neighbor to make moral choices, but I do not want the state to be able to decide right and wrong and being able to enforce its will upon us. With that said, I believe the extent of government involvement in our lives should be to protect citizens from unjust aggression against a person or his property. The initiation of violence is a no-go in the Libertarian view. Prominent Libertarians such as Laurence Vance, and many others, believe this non-aggression principle extends to the lives of the unborn. We believe that life begins at conception and that the consistent Libertarian stance is to protect this innocent life from harm. This body is not the woman's body - it is an autonomous being. I would like to know your stance on this issue before my family and I could endorse you. Thank you for your time. ~
Hey Greg! Thank you for reaching out. Like most Americans, this is a tough topic for me, and I understand good faith arguments on all sides. I on a personal level find abortion very sad, and if a friend were to ask my opinion I would try to urge them not to. When it comes to federal law, I do not believe in congress deciding on the issue though. I guess I am the classical 'pro choice' when it comes to the right to access it at a federal level, but I strongly believe that the federal government should not be funding it. I think any legislation pertaining to it should come from the States and then be addressed by the court system. Thank you again for reaching out, and let me know if you have any additional questions I can answer.
Thank you for responding, Sean. While I too believe that abortion is not an issue to be dealt with at the federal level, my reason for this is that it has already been dealt with on the state level in the fact that it is a crime to commit murder. It is not a "tough topic" for those who respect life. In the words of Laurence Vance, whom I referenced in my first email: "A baby in the womb is not a blob of tissue, not a cluster of cells, and certainly not a parasite that needs to be evicted. Abortion is not a procedure, a treatment, an evacuation, the removal of a fetus, or a defense against an invader. It is the destruction of human life."
He also said: "because the non-aggression axiom is central to libertarianism, and because force is justified only in self-defense, and because it is wrong to threaten or initiate violence against a person or his property, and because killing is the ultimate form of aggression that, to be consistent, libertarians should be opposed to abortion."
For a "libertarian" to claim he is "pro-choice", even if he claims it is "sad" and that he would "urge" a friend not do it, and that it should be a state issue, ignores the fact mentioned above that it has already been dealt with in the state prohibition of murder, and it is also inconsistent with the libertarianism he claims to adhere to. It is the barbaric practice of destroying innocent human life. A man cannot claim to value life and freedom, if he will not stand up for the most vulnerable among us by calling a spade a spade.
My circle of influence is small, so my lack of support is most likely inconsequential, but I cannot support you for the Senate while you have such a weak stance on this issue, even though I agree with you on other matters. Perhaps I have misunderstood your stance. If I have, I would gladly like to hear it.