Topic: Abortion
Libertarianism & Abortion "People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared to be unwanted." - Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX) (The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 59-60)by Alexander Massa
(libertarian)
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Abortion is incompatible with the Libertarian ideology. While many would claim that Libertarians by nature would be pro-choice, as abortion to many is seen as a "right", the truth is that abortion is and should be reprehensible to all true disciples of Liberty. How are we to protect the rights of the people if we cannot even guarantee that they will have a right to life? Don't the words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" mean anything anymore? None of our rights and privileges as citizens of the United States are safe if we do not protect the most basic human right - the right to life. Dr. Ron Paul, who has delivered thousands of babies, agrees with this premise, and he sees being pro-life as an essential part of his Libertarian beliefs.
Abortion is a cruel and barbaric practice, especially partial-birth abortion, which is still carried out by some amoral doctors who don't have a conscience. When one considers the terrible methods with with abortions are conducted, it becomes impossible to simultaneously have a conscience and by pro-choice. Anyone who supports abortion and can bear to look at the pictures of disemboweled and mangled infants is truly an evil person. Most pro-choice individuals do not know the evil methods with which abortions are carried out, and many haven't seen what an abortion looks like. Perhaps they should take a look. After all, how can you in good faith support something if you can't even bear to look at it?
Abortion violates the most basic human right, and therefore should not be supported by anyone who considers himself a Libertarian, or a humanitarian, for that matter. Of course, the pro-abortion crowd counters with the argument that the so-called "fetus" is not a human, and therefore does not have the same rights as a human. This argument is completely and totally absurd. The fetus, according to medical professionals, can feel pain during abortions. It has a beating heart, functioning organs, hair, and even fingernails, for God sakes. It's even been found that unborn babies dream regularly. How a "fetus" could be anything other than a living human being is beyond me.
The pro-abortion advocates always complain and moan about phantom "lost liberties" when pro-lifers talk about overturning Roe v. Wade and criminalizing abortion. However, there wasn't in the past, isn't now, and never will be a right to abortion. Pregnant women do not have the legal right to take on extrajudicial powers to murder freely simply because of the fact that they have been impregnated. Our system doesn't work that way, and I'm not aware of any system that does. The fact is that the Roe v. Wade case was a case of judicial activism, and it created a supposed "right" that is non-existent.
I pray for the day when Roe v. Wade is overturned and when the American Holocaust finally comes to an end. The fact that certain doctors are willing to subvert their own values in order to make money off of abortions is incredibly sickening, and these doctors should be punished when abortion is criminalized in the future.
In conclusion, abortion violates the rights of the unborn and therefore should not be supported by Libertarians. Because there is no established right to an abortion, despite what the Roe v. Wade decision states, Libertarians and others should actively support and lobby for the death of abortion in the United States.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 13 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Alexander Massa only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Alexander Massa is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
There are 2 arguments, either of which are compatible with being libertarian and pro-choice.
1) The woman has the right to the property of her own body and the fetus can be removed as an unwanted trespasser.
2) The fetus is not determined to be alive until it is born. An anecephalic baby may have a heart beat and functioning organs but no brain and therefore no cpacity for survival outside the womb. The only way to be sure that a fetus is capabable of survival separate from the mother is to make the separation happen, so the fetus can not be determined to be alive while it is a fetus and has no right to life until this determination can be made. Therefore, abortion can not be considered homicide although the law could determine lawful and unlawful abortion.
One way out of this problem: force the birth of the baby and see if it survives on its own. If it didn't it was no human being and if it does it has all the rights every human has.
Another way out of this problem: Make it easier for women who do not want that child to give it away; to make it possible to give birth and give it to *loving* parents, not to some government institution.
Anyways, I personally think: It is the woman's body and if she does not want certain things in her body and there are ways to get it out it is only her decision and nobody else's.
Another very interesting fact is: Abortions won't go away if you forbid them. Who really wants an abortion just goes somewhere else, maybe with less hygenic and less care for the woman. Then, in effect, you put your very own moral on someone else and because of this, finally forcing this very person, who made a very hard decision, to die. Think about it.
This screed is complete and total nonsense, as a simple thought experiment will demonstrate. Consider two petri dishes, each of which contains 100 unfertilized human eggs. We begin by disposing of one of the dishes. Is that "murder", Mr. Massa? No, not even someone like you would have the nerve to claim that, right? Next consider two loads of sperm, each containing about 100 million cells. We dispose of one load. Is that "murder"? Only a fool would claim so. Now we take the remaining load of sperm and introduce it into the remaining petri dish, and the 100 eggs become fertilized; we then dispose of them. According to Mr. Massa, we have just committed mass murder! Such a twisted thought process defies all reason, and belongs in the realm of religious fanaticism.
Human rights belong to human beings, who at a minimum are capable of rational thought and autonomous actions in pursuit of maintaining life. Human rights to not belong to blobs of protoplasm which at most contain the BLUEPRINT for a human being. Confusing the two is the height of lunacy.
Mr. Massa envisions a perfect society as one in which people claim to be "free" but are in fact subject to massive government intrusions, with enforcers lurking in every doctor's examining room to capture and persecute anyone who commits the "sin" of not kowtowing to his perverted beliefs.
You, sir, are no libertarian, and by being an authoritarian in libertarian's clothing, you drive away people who are striving to achieve genuine freedom. You are a disgrace!
Posted By: Ron Stringfield
Date: 2009-11-06 08:33:32
Your argument makes the right to life a positive right rather than a negative one. The right to life, properly understood, means no other may kill you, without just cause. But your argument turns it into others being obligated to provide support for your life. Your arguyment is compatible with socialism, not libertarianism.
The reader comments show considerably greater understanding of libertarian ideas than the author's screed. I'm particularly pleased to see the private property comment up first.
If a woman had no right to remove a baby from her womb, what right would she have to remove a rapist's penis from her body? Yes, it is possible to remove the rapist's penis without killing the rapist, but is it necessary?
The comment asking that abortions be performed so the baby is removed and if it survives, it has full rights as a human seems quite wise. It aligns well with my suggestion that the technological path forward is to develop artificial wombs and the technology to transplant an unwanted pregnancy to a willing host mother (or to an artificial womb). We have made great strides in neo-natal care of premature infants.
Yes, killing is horrible. It should be avoided if possible in many instances. War should be avoided and ended. Pregnancy termination should not involve death unless essential.
But killing is a part of defending life, liberty, and property. It is not always pleasant but it is often on the menu.
If killing a human embryo were made illegal, how could Alexander Massa justify a homicide involved in stopping a thief, rapist, or trespasser? Yet such killings take place every month and are generally ruled justifiable rather than criminal by grand juries and prosecutors.
Your article on abortion has convinced me to leave the Libertarian Party. I intend to register as an independent. Such middle-age thinking is incompatible with modern day reality.
I think the argument is in line with Libertarianism.
I guess the question is, when do rights begin?
Is the unborn the property of the mother? Or is the mother the life support system for the unborn?
Using the "viable" argument doesn't work, as there are lots of people that are not 'viable", they depend on machines for life support. If Stephen Hawking was ripped from his life support system would he not die?
Using the 'brains' argument doesn't work. Do the mentally retarted not have rights because they do not have the 'brains' to understand their rights?
Killing a human embryo/fetus has been legally defined as a crime. How many times have we seen double homocide charges filed when a pregnant woman is killed? The unborn is considered a tissue mass when the mother wants an abortion, but a human when the mother is killed. It is either property or a human, it can't be both.
Posted By: Mark Williamston
Date: 2009-11-06 15:15:43
Another problem with many of the arguments supporting abortion rights is that they fail to discuss the change that occurs at birth. Why does a mother have an obligation to care for a child once it is born? Using the brains or viability argument, a child has a right to life only so far as it can survive on its own. Following this argument, a mother could discard a newborn and let it fend for itself with no moral or legal repercussion. The newborn is given it's right to life, insofar as it can exercise this right by itself. Just as mothers have an obligation to care for a newborn, at a minimum of safely putting the newborn in the hands of the state or some other entity willing to take responsibility for the child, she has the responsibility to provide a place for it to develop it until birth. It's always struck me as peculiar how simply moving 18 inches down causes this dramatic change in the way a child is regarded by some. In utero the child is something that is completely at the mercy of the mother. Once it moves out of the uterus it is protected by a host of laws. What changed other than location? Now a mother is deemed responsible for the child. If abortion is deemed legal it seems that the parent should either have absolutely no responsibility for the child, to the point that abandoning it on the street to fend for itself is acceptable, or the parent should retain the right to kill the newborn if it impinges upon the parent's freedoms.
"1) The woman has the right to the property of her own body and the fetus can be removed as an unwanted trespasser."
This argument is deeply flawed, because it establishes all babies as "trespassers" at the mercy of the "trespassee". If we were to take this to the logical extention, then all babies should be aborted.
I would say it's a tough question for a Libertarian. My position on it has changed dramatically over the last few years. At one time I was 100% pro-choice, but I've moved much more toward the pro-life side. Several things caused me to rethink my pro-choice position.
1) I've seen pictures on the internet of babies aborted in the late term. In late term abortions the bodies are cut up in the womb and removed one piece at a time. The pictures are hideous. Some show tiny amputated arms and legs lying next to a torso on the operating table. Others show decapitated heads. All of the body parts are distinctly human, not animal. I asked myself over and over if I could support that. And every time the answer was; no I can't support that.
2) My youngest daughter recently gave birth to twins. There was never any thought of abortion. My daughter and her husband both wanted the babies. But because it was twins there are potential complications the doctors watch for, so they ran more ultra-sounds than they would for a single birth. My wife and I were able to be present at some of them. After seeing those tiny lives developing in the womb the idea of ending them became unthinkable. I'm happy to say that today we have to precious little twin granddaughters.
3) The 14th amendment says; "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." At birth the baby would be considered a person and certainly in any state if someone killed a newborn baby that would be murder. But what happens a few hours earlier when the baby is still in the womb? It's the same baby and separated from life only by passage through the birth canal. Isn't the baby still a person then? It seems to me like it is.
Of course at the beginning of the birth cycle there is only a fertilized egg. It is one cell with no arms or legs or eyes or brain or any of the parts that make a human. It may have all the instructions for building a person but in my opinion it is not yet a person. The big question is; when does it become a person? I don't know the answer to that question but I think that point comes very quickly.
"1) The woman has the right to the property of her own body and the fetus can be removed as an unwanted trespasser."
This argument is deeply flawed, because it establishes all babies as "trespassers" at the mercy of the "trespassee". If we were to take this to the logical extention, then all babies should be aborted.
Another reason an unborn child is not a "trespasser" is that trepass is an act of conscious intent and involves crossing a recognized boundary. A child in the womb did not cross any boundaries and, in fact, has no choice about being there.
There are a number of other arguments I could make to show why abortion is incompatible with libertarian principles, but instead let me offer a link to the website of Libertarians for Life, which has dozens of articles on the subject.
"Using the 'brains' argument doesn't work. Do the mentally retarted not have rights because they do not have the 'brains' to understand their rights?"
The difference between anencephaly and, for example, Down syndrome (which demonstrates mental retardation) is that the Down syndrome patient still has a physical brain while the anencephalic fetus has none. There is no question of the rights of those born with brains, so the quoted question about the mentally retarded amounts to a straw man argument.
'This argument is deeply flawed, because it establishes all babies as "trespassers" at the mercy of the "trespassee". If we were to take this to the logical extention, then all babies should be aborted.'
Only unwanted babies are trespassers, and a woman with full property rights to her own body has the right to remove a trespasser at any time.
'Another reason an unborn child is not a "trespasser" is that trepass is an act of conscious intent and involves crossing a recognized boundary. A child in the womb did not cross any boundaries and, in fact, has no choice about being there.'
A woman with full property rights to her own body has the right to remove a trespasser at any time, irrespective of how the trespasser came to occupy her property, even if the pregnancy was initially planned but later reconsidered.
I have been researching Libertarianism and becoming increasingly excited about the party. I have already begun teaching my 5 children what I have learned so far. Unfortunately, tonight I encountered a deal breaker. Are Libertarians really in favor of forcing women to give birth? This goes against the grain of all your other claims. The above commentary on abortions is the far right position dressed up in Libertarian clothing-- and it doesn't fit very well. You can't defend citizens rights and presume to make this choice for women. Women are natural caretakers and nurturers who almost always have good reasons for this hard decision. I think the current compromise we have of allowing abortions early on and outlawing them after that is a reasonable compromise. We all know who can't compromise; spoiled children and extremists.
A woman with full property rights to her own body has the right to remove a trespasser at any time, irrespective of how the trespasser came to occupy her property, even if the pregnancy was initially planned but later reconsidered.
This is the kind of argument that causes a lot of intelligent people to think libertarians are idiots. In fact, the notion that a person has a "property right" in his/her body is fallacious. Human beings are not "property" in the commonly accepted sense, not even of themselves. If this were so, they could sell themselves into slavery because, if you "own" something, you have the right to do whatever you want with it, and this includes the right to convey title to someone else.
Even if you accept the "property right" argument, there are limits to what you can do to protect your property. For example, if someone is walking along a public sidewalk and trips and accidentally falls onto your property, you don't have the right to blow his head off with a shotgun.
Also, you did not refute my argument; you just repeated your previous assertion. A trespasser, by definition, is one who intentionally crosses a recognized boundary. An unborn child does not meet that definition, ergo he/she is not a trespasser.
Posted By: Frank in Florida
Date: 2009-11-07 09:02:12
I have recently begun to think of this problem in terms of power and authority.
We hold that all power originates in people -- that's where government gets its power. So, if two people voluntarily act in such a way that a new life ought to be expected, then if fertilization occurs, a new life has been created.
If the action is not voluntary, as in rape, the power to create new life has not been exercised and new life has not been created.
The other side of that is that in a case of rape, there must be a criminal complaint against the rapist. No complaint -- no rape. No rape -- no abortion.
Posted By: Alexander Massa
Date: 2009-11-07 09:05:15
I'm very surprised at some of the comments my article has received. I'm going to respond to some of them.
yoikes, if you take the property argument further, you could conceivably argue that parents have the right to kill their children at any time for any reason before they turn 18, because children belong to their parents.
adaptune, while you may disagree with what I have to say, there is no reason to go out of your way to insult me personally. I find that quite childish and disrespectful. Just because we disagree on an issue doesn't mean I'm not a libertarian. And for that matter, who made you leader of the libertarians? Since when do you decide who is and who isn't one?
Ron Stringfield, how did I turn it into a positive right?
Dan, I doubt you were ever a member of the party, because if you were one, you'd know that the party officially supports abortion. Also, not all libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party. It's kind of like how not all republicans are Republicans.
Thank you Ken and Phil Manger for supporting my position with facts.
"yoikes, if you take the property argument further, you could conceivably argue that parents have the right to kill their children at any time for any reason before they turn 18, because children belong to their parents. "
Parents can put unwanted children up for adoption, but with current health care technology, there is no way to remove a fetus before about 20 weeks gestation whereby it survives.
Posted By: Alexander Massa
Date: 2009-11-07 12:11:21
"Parents can put unwanted children up for adoption, but with current health care technology, there is no way to remove a fetus before about 20 weeks gestation whereby it survives."
yoikes, your premise is laughable. You honestly believe that just because it can't survive on it's own that it should possibly be killed via an abortion? Besides, how come you haven't responded to the comment about Steven Hawking not being able to sustain himself? Should Mr. Hawking be aborted too?
Stephen Hawking was wanted by someone who sustained him until he was able to pay for his own care. I wouldn't say who should and who should not abort or be aborted, but instead, I argue that it is not unlibertarian to argue that a woman, as owner of the property of her own body, can remove an unwanted fetus.
A better analogy would be if a homeless person sought shelter on your property from a 9 month cold spell. As owner of your property you could remove the person to the boundary of your property even though that person may die of exposure.
Wow, would you look at all the rage this has caused? I have to say that no matter what side you're on, both sides amount to coercion in each other's definitions, so the only acceptable premise is the one that Senatorial candidate Bob Byrd came up with.
Enforcing anti-abortion laws could become a niche nanny state bureaucracy in themselves. Therefore, it is for both the practical and principled that silence on this issue be in favor of silence from the government.
Except in RAPE cases, women are the ones who have the CHOICE of who's penis enters her vagina or not. They also have the CHOICE of several birth control options and they even have the CHOICE of the morning-after pill. With so many CHOICES prior to an abortion, why is abortion still an issue? Why are women not CHOSING correctly in the first few months and letting the fetus grow to a point where although legal is almost like legal murder? Remember Andrea Yates? She murdered all 5 of her children because they were unwanted and she alledgedly suffered from post-partum depression. So why is it ok to let something human-like grow and then kill it? If you CHOSE not to feed your 4-month old newborn and it dies, you are guilty of negligence and homicide but if you CHOSE to kill your 5-month old fetus in an abortion, then that legal. So why the wait? You don't let a cancerous tumor grow, so why are these women waiting to remove the fetus if its unwanted?
There is a time in the womb where the blob of cells become a live fetus. Unfortunately we don't know exactly when that time is. So there is a gray area there between murder or just a simple surgical removal of unwanted cells and tissue.
I guess the technicality is that since there is no birth certificate yet, the fetus has no rights in the USA including the right to life because he or she is not yet a citizen. But we can't legally kill an illegal immigrant who does not have a birth certificate either.
I am allergic to cats. When I was in college, I found my next door neighboor's kitten sleeping in my own pillow for the THIRD time. It was not supposed to be there so the kitten was a trasspasser to me. I was so pissed, that out of rage I grabed the helpless defenseless unwanted kitten and threw it out of my balcony 6 stories down to its death. What I did was illegal and wrong, but to me it was just a kitten. I really don't care about the life of cats especially since I am allergic to them. If we kill chickens, cows and rabbits to eat and we kill rats, moles and cockroaches as pests then why not kill a kitten that's trasspassing my property. I then picked up the dead kitten from the parking lot and put it in the garbage. Nobody saw me so I got away with "murder" and my neighbor didn't know I kill it. NEVERTHELESS, there is a law against what I did, but somehow is ok for a woman to kill its unwanted fetus but not ok to kill that unwanted healthy helpless kitten. So the law puts more value to a kitten than to a 5-month old fetus. Kind of weird how the law works.
Its a tough CHOICE that abortion thing, probably tougher than me killing that kitten. I am so glad I am not a woman and do not have to take those kind of CHOICES. To doubt whether or not it should be illegal does not make me less libertarian-leaning. But if its going to be legal, it should be as quickly as possible so not to let it grow further.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
