Reaffirming Life Thirty Years After Roe vs. Wade--A Libertarian Perspecitive

Thirty years after the Supreme Court ruled that having an abortion is a constitutional right, the pro-life and the so-called pro-choice advocates are probably further apart today then when the Court made its ruling on January 22, 1973.

Today, some pro-choicers support partial-birth abortion, or late term abortion, where a fully formed baby is aborted--killed would be the more accurate description--in a gruesome procedure. In a partial-birth abortion, a baby's skull is punctured and its brains are sucked out, causing a collapse of the skull. Even former New York City mayor Ed Koch, a pro-choicer, has called partial-birth abortion infanticide.

In numerous polls, up to 80% of the public wants partial-birth abortion banned. So why is partial-birth abortion still legal? The power of the abortion rights lobby is incredibly strong, and the courts have succumbed to the mantra of a "woman's right to choose", even if it involves the killing of an innocent human life.

Given the profound philosophical differences between the two sides of the abortion issue, can there be any compromise so that abortion becomes rare, if not extinct. After all, it is the "New Democrats" and Bill Clinton who finessed the abortion issue in the 1992 presidential campaign with the sound bite that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare".

Yet, even though the number of abortions has been declining in recent years, more than one million abortions are still performed in the Untied States annually. If anything, the Clinton administration in eight years did not implement policies that could be construed as helping reduce the number of abortions to near zero, the definition of rare.

Although neither side in the abortion debate believes there can be a compromise on either the "right to choose" or the "right to life", economist, professor and libertarian theoretician, Walter Block, has written a provocative essay putting forth a "middle-way" on the abortion issue that he believes gives each side a "half-a-loaf" now. Block calls his position, "evictionism". He also argues that at some indeterminate time in the future technology will make abortion unnecessary, and therefore illegal.

Dr. Block's essay, "Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Theory of Abortion", contains several statements that seemingly would put him in the pro-life camp, namely, "The only group of sufferers whose plight even remotely approaches that of the fetus is the abused (small) child. This is surely one of the most pitiful sets of victims, but even they, in contrast, have had some years of life. The fetus stands alone, even compared to these other unfortunates…It is for this reason I maintain that abortion is an abomination. It is a massive killer."

So far so good. Block soon stakes out his position, when he states, "…just because aborting the fetus is abominable, it does not follow that it should be prohibited by law". Block defends his pro-choice, abortion is an abomination position, by asserting, a woman "owns her own body, and the unwanted fetus growing within it is in effect a trespasser or parasite. This may sound harsh, but when the property rights in question are thoroughly analyzed, it is the only possible conclusion that may be reached".

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas and an obstetrician/gynecologist, author of Challenge to Liberty, a libertarian defense of the pro-life position, states: "The fetus is not an intruder, but a human being innocently placed in the uterus by it parents. It's less of a parasite on the mother than is a newborn demanding and deserving of attention at all hours of the day and night for many years. Self-ownership of the mother's body cannot be a greater right than ownership of her home".

Dr. Paul then warns of the logical consequences we as a society may face because of legal abortion.

"Although the parasite-intruder argument is supposed to apply only to the fetus, it will be used as an argument for state imposed infanticide and euthanasia for economic reasons. Pro-abortion statists will make the leap easily, although most pro-abortion libertarians will avoid the temptation. Nevertheless, accepting this theory for fetal life will be responsible for promoting similar arguments at the other end of the life cycle".

In short, from legal abortion to infanticide, can euthanasia be far behind? Then, would terminating the politically undesirables be acceptable?

Block also makes the following points, which would put him squarely in the pro-life camp. "At what point does human life begin? There are really only two reasonable possibilities: at conception, or at birth; all other points of development in between are merely points along a continuum which begins and ends with these two options. At any point before the fertilization, there is only a sperm and an egg. Neither, without the other, is capable of developing into anything else, let alone anything human. But the fertilized egg most certainly will become a human being, if kept in the womb for nine months. At any point after birth, there is similarly no question: if a baby is not a human being, then no one is.

"So which is it? Does life begin at the beginning point of this nine month continuum, or at the end of it. I take the former position. I maintain that the fetus is an alive human being from day one onward, with all the rights pertaining to any other member of the species". (Emphasis added)

Block tries to make a compelling case that as long as technology can keep alive a fetus outside the womb, then abortion should be banned because the owner of the womb, the woman, does not have the right to kill the trespasser, the fetus. Block argues that the owner of land or other property must evict a trespasser peacefully unless there is a threat to the life of the property owner. Similarly, a woman does not have the right to end the life of her "trespasser" when there are peaceful methods of "eviction".

However, if the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, then Block argues, an abortion is an acceptable act because the fetus has no right to be on the "property"--the womb--of its owner. An abortion at this time would be an acceptable type of eviction, according to Block.

Nevertheless, Block argues, once technology exists that will allow a fetus to survive outside the womb, then all abortions would be tantamount to murder and should be outlawed.

Given the uncompromising positions on both sides of the abortion issue, Block concludes, "Evictionism is a compromise position. It lies part way between the status quo, where babies are slaughtered with as much compunction as we would swat a fly, and the present official goal of the pro life movement, which is to force all pregnant women to carry their unborn child for nine months and then deliver it".

Block tires--and fails--to offer a compromise on the abortion issue. As a libertarian, he embraces the nonaggression principle, which should put him in the pro-life camp, because abortion is a form of aggression against a nonaggressor, even if he is a "trespasser".

In addition, Block states that the fetus is entitled to the same rights as fully developed members of the species, i.e., human beings. Therefore, a fetus, the unborn child, should have the same rights as we have, that is, not to be the victim of aggression.

Moreover, as a long-time libertarian, Block should advocate the protection of all members of the species now, not at some time in the indefinite future, when technological development would make any abortion unnecessary.

After thirty years of debating the abortion issue, we should be concentrating our efforts in developing technologies that will prevent unwanted pregnancies without destroying the new life created in the womb, so we can have zero instances of abortion. However, once a new life is created, the developing human being should be given all the rights and protections that human beings outside the womb have.

The pro-life position is consistent with our Judeo-Christian tradition, and with the vision of our nation that government is instituted to protect the life, liberty and property of the people, born and unborn.

Murray Sabrin is a USA Daily columnist http://www.usadaily.com/ as well as professor of finance at Ramapo College of New Jersey and the author of Tax Free 2000: The Rebirth of American Liberty He was the New Jersey Libertarian Party candidate for governor in 1997 and after rejoining the GOP after 25 years, sought the party's nomination for the United States Senate in 2000. He is vice-chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus

I agree.....I'm also thrilled that there is a fairly strong pro-life faction within the Libertarian Party today, because when I first became interested in the LP back in the late 1980's, I thought (???) they were mostly pro-abortion. I remember Harry Browne saying that he is pro-life....& of course, the very honorable Rep./Dr. RON PAUL is again a total class act. If we could only find & elect more statesmen like him into Congress!

-----------------------

I think this view is correct. I would add: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas and an obstetrician/gynecologist, author of Challenge to Liberty, a libertarian defense of the pro-life position, states: "The fetus is not an intruder, but a human being innocently and knowingly placed in the uterus by it parents.

It strikes me that the litmus test for membership in the Democratic Party is the willingness to kill future Democrats. Abortion in the US is a Democrat industry, in which Democrat mothers deliver their future Democrat children to be murdered by Democrat abortionists.

To be a Democrat is to support and even celebrate the slaughter of your own kind.

I used to refer to the "baby killer wing of the Democratic Party", until it eventually became obvious that there was no other wing. The baby killers, and their supporters, make up the totality of the party.

Since they insist on killing at least a million of their young each year, demographics would relegate them to the political sidelines in a single generation were it not for their ability to recruit new members, through their absolute domination of the press and entertainment media.

It is also significant that while Democrats kill a million of their own each year, we admit about a million immigrants each year, to claim the jobs that supposedly no one will fill. No one will fill them, of course, because the ones who might have filled them were killed by their parents before they drew their first breath.

So we have the astonishing situation of a political party, or a mass psychosis, which insists on committing suicide and replacing itself with immigrants. Bizarre, grotesque... not a bad trade, mind you, but still grotesque.

I really liked the article, thanks. One of the arguments I rarely see made is on the Hippocratic Oath. Early abortions can be controversial, but later term abortions, like partial birth abortions, are covered under the Hippocratic Oath, first do no harm. There are literally two viable people. If the physician is making a call to try to save both patients and chooses the mother, it is his judgement. If he is disregarding the fetus without consideration, he is violating the Hippocratic Oath. The fetus is another patient and deserving that consideration. It he does not do this, then he is an abortionist, not a doctor. Most doctors will not do late term abortions on demand. They will make tough life and death decisions, based on medical practice. But will not be in the abortion trade.

Anyone with thoughts on those beliefs?

DK

Excellent work. I had no idea Sabrin was this sensible. His gubernatorial campaign certainly didn't showcase this side of him.

It will take some time before a pro-life program can be composed that nevertheless shows the appropriate degree of respect for a woman's right to privacy in her body and its management. Our concepts of a "reasonable search" performed upon "probable cause" will have to be extended to cover this new case. The starting point must be a recognition, as here, that though the job is difficult, it is morally obligatory.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

Hate to break up the party but this article is in direct opposition to the Libertarian Party Platform. No reasonable reading of that platform can conclude that the Libertarian Party is anything but Pro-Choice, ie, supports abortion rights. Here's the platform:

Women's Rights and Abortion

We hold that individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women, such as protective labor laws and marriage or divorce laws which deny the full rights of men and women. We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice and private property or to widen tyranny through reverse discrimination.

Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.

We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.

It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements, and/or home births.

So? The LP is irrelevant to anything beyond the narrow confines of fringist infighting. What matters is that libertarians – note the small “l” – of stature are finally rejecting the notion that the extreme, absolutist pro-choice stance is the only one compatible with the ideals of freedom.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

This proves nothing. Would you make the claim that the existance of few pro-life democrats proves that party is "rejecting" an "extreme, absolutist pro-choice stance"? When the platform changes or when the libertarian party nominates a pro-life candidate, then your claim will have substance.

Work on your reading skills, DD. Note the following, which you appear to have managed to ignore as you commented:

The LP is irrelevant to anything beyond the narrow confines of fringist infighting.

Once upon a time, the LP might have been relevant to American libertarianism. It definitely isn't today. The libertarian future, if it lies with any party, lies with the GOP.

Got it this time? Or should I use smaller words?

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.