Why this pro-choice woman supports the only pro-life Libertarian candidate, Austin Petersen
By Aubrey Eyrolles
From the Libertarian Shaman: Libertarianism is one of the fastest growing movements in America and has divergent opinions within our movement itself. From time to time, I will post pieces that contradict my own views for the sake of objectivity and free speech. Because I believe in the spirit and content of the First Amendment, I publish this dissenting opinion on the pro-life issue.
(This article deals with the issue of abortion)
I know you’re probably asking yourself how a pro-choice individual can support a pro-life candidate. Right off the bat you probably think that I’ve lost my mind, but please go with me on this and I promise that I will not lead you astray.
Abortion is a sensitive topic and my goal here today is for those of you that are pro-choice to understand why choosing a Libertarian pro-life candidate will NOT go against your pro-choice stance.
The reason why it has never been acceptable to support a pro-life candidate for President when you are pro-choice is because we are all accustomed to the establishment (in this case, the politicians in the Republican Party) trying to overreach their boundaries into the personal lives of women.
We hear the sound bites that have come from these politicians and it is very clear that, if given the choice, they would like to completely abolish abortion. As a result, the term “Pro-Life” has become synonymous with the idea of control.
They are seeking to keep you under their thumb by controlling your body, controlling your reproductive choices and ultimately controlling the path of your whole life.
We do not wish to be under their control and we would like to make these decisions ourselves. As a result of this desire to make our own choices, the intuitive choice for the Presidency in 2016 is Austin Petersen.
Perhaps one of the most divisive issues of this generation (and the one before it) is abortion. When it comes to the two major parties, Democrats are traditionally pro-choice and Republicans are generally pro-life.
Individuals on both sides focus on the morality of abortion and the arguments on both sides are emotionally charged and not typically productive. Individuals who are pro-choice are often accused of being murderers and pro-lifers are typically accused of being religious wingnuts.
The Libertarian Party tries to infuse some logic into the abortion conversation. As a result of this logical approach to abortion, Libertarians are actually split down the middle on this issue. However, at the end of the day, the abortion discussion comes down to one thing for true Libertarians: Should the government be involved in medical decisions?
The Federal government has a long history in getting involved in the abortion issue, but at the end of the day, it is not their jurisdiction in a Libertarian government. Under a Libertarian presidency, the President will not have any authority on the issue. Now STOP for a minute and re-read that last sentence – The President will not have any authority on the issue.
All of the LP candidates have made it clear that they do not want the federal government to get involved in the abortion argument. All of them would be standing up for the rights of women to make their own choice. All of them are candidates who know that Washington cannot make a decision about what is right for millions of women.
Under a Libertarian President, this will become the states’ rights issue that it should have been all along. If you happen to live in a state where abortions are deemed acceptable, you will have nothing to worry about.
If you live in a state where they lean towards being pro-life, then you can use democracy to your advantage by petitioning for amendments that would amend your state laws. In all of the changes that would be made with the LP at the helm, the President will not have authority on the issue. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if your candidate is pro-life or pro-choice. There will not be any instances where his personal opinion would affect your rights.
At the end of the day, realizing that the Federal government would not be involving itself in abortions is rather exciting. The Libertarians will take the abortion argument back down to the states, which means that your Governor’s stance on abortion is way more important than your President’s stance. So what does all of this mean when it comes down to who I choose to support for President?
It means that a Libertarian candidate’s stance on abortion does not matter to me. If they truly believe in the government not getting involved in the decision and if they will not take any steps to ban abortion, then I literally have no reason to worry about a pro-life Libertarian candidate.
In this election, Austin Petersen is the only LP candidate who is pro-life. Given that the only thing I disagree with him on is abortion, and I have carefully laid out why this difference of opinion does not matter, then it only makes sense that I choose Austin Petersen as the candidate who receives my enthusiastic support for the Presidency.
Aubrey Eyrolles lives in Dallas, Texas and uses logic as her guide. She’s an extreme hockey nut who dabbles in writing opinion pieces. She has been a libertarian since before she knew what to call herself.