Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abortion and Libertarianism
The Libertarian Enterprise ^ | May 13, 2002 | W. James Antle III

Posted on 05/20/2002 2:51:41 PM PDT by dubyajames

Abortion and Libertarianism: A Conclusion

by W. James Antle III

The abortion debate needn't be an endless rehashing of political minutiae when it can serve as an occasion for reexamining libertarian first principles. It touches on humanity as the basis for individual rights and the prohibition against initiatory violence.

Libertarians reject aggression against other human beings, including lethal violence against the innocent. But some defend the killing of fetuses on the grounds that the fetus is a potential rather than actual human being, a human going to be rather than a human being as William Westmiller would say.

Those making this argument fail to show the biological, genetic or ontological difference between what kind of being the fetus is and what kind of being a newborn is. Certainly birth is a monumental event. But the being that was born is the same being that was in the womb just moments before -- what miraculous change in its fundamental nature takes place simply due to the trip down the birth canal? If the development of the fetus is uninterrupted, it is an essential part of its nature to make this journey. Developmentally, it seems more accurate to say that the fetus is a potential infant in the same sense that an infant is a potential toddler or adolescent. A new being is not formed, but one organism reaches a new stage of development.

Skin cells contain human life. So do gametes. But neither have the potential to become a complete human being on their own. At conception or the simulation thereof that is cloning, a self-contained, distinct physical organism comes into existence that, unless interrupted, will actively develop into the various more mature stages of the life of a member of the human species. Sperm, eggs and somatic cells will not.

One can say that they have fertilized eggs but only became a father upon their children's birth. But the act of fertilizing the eggs was a necessary prerequisite of that person's fatherhood and if any of those specific fertilized eggs had not been allowed to continue developing, the specific children that this father has would not be here today. That clearly shows an individuated being. We were all once fetuses and if we had been killed as fetuses, we would no more be in existence as the individuals we are today than if we had died as infants or teen- agers.

Sapience may be one of the characteristics that makes the human species unique, but it does not define an individual's membership in that species. Humans have the capacity to reason, but even after birth this capacity is not always actualized (infants, the severely disabled, the comatose). Some mock the claim that a fetus has any rights by pointing to the absurd spectacle of fetuses exercising their rights to bear firearms, own businesses or come up with innovative ideas. But it would be equally absurd to imagine an infant doing any of those things, yet few (Peter Singer comes to mind as an exception) would endorse killing infants. Why? Because we know infants are humans and as they continue to develop cognitively, humans have the capacity for all of these things. Humans have inherent worth on the basis of their humanity, which in turn is the basis of all rights -- the intrinsic value that necessitates individual autonomy.

Reason makes human beings different from other animal-organisms, but this does not imply some sort of soul-body duality. We are essentially animal-organisms, we don't inhabit organisms, and we thus come to be when the organism that we are comes to be.

Mr. Westmiller chides abortion opponents for divorcing the birth of new people from the "disgustingly pleasurable sexual act" that creates them. Yet it is his position that actually does that. This sexual act is in fact what produces the being that leaves the womb at birth -- there could be no birth if the being was not already in the womb. It is this sexual act that creates the parental responsibility. The stork does not bring new babies; the sexual choices of free men and women do. We recognize that because of this act parents have an obligation to provide support for their children and not evict them from the crib and let them die. Logically, it is untenable to suggest that no responsibility exists until the being they have brought into existence leaves the birth canal. Nor will it do to suggest this somehow implies that people have no recourse against sexual mistakes. It is simply the case that such recourses must stop short of intentionally causing the death of another human being that came about not by its own will, but by the voluntary actions of its parents.

What about rape? Many pro-choicers hold the confused view that if fetuses are to have any rights, then they must have more rights than other human beings. They can be forgiven for this because many pro- lifers seem to share this illogical notion. If human beings can legitimately be killed in self-defense, fetuses are no different. This case can be made in instances of rape, when the mother did not consent to the act that imposes parental obligations, and it is unassailable in instances when the mother's life is endangered. Where it is not legitimate is in the estimated 98 percent of the more than 1 million abortions that take place annually in the United States which are purely elective.

This misconception also explains the fear of "fetus cops." Simply because a few deranged child-welfare bureaucrats believe that preventing every possible parental activity that may place a child at even the most miniscule risk warrants unprecedented state intervention in every home does not mean the proper libertarian response is to proclaim a parental right to beat, torture and kill children. Similarly, just because regulation of every act by a pregnant woman that might conceivably put some fetus at risk would be undesirable does not mean that there is a right to destroy that fetus for any reason or no reason whatsoever. Reasonable distinctions can also be made between serving as governor of Massachusetts and delivering a crack baby.

A pro-life libertarianism respects the individual from the moment that the specific organism that each of us are comes into existence. Such libertarianism isn't contradictory, for it recognizes the rights of every human being, foremost the right to life. Government cannot "solve" the abortion issue. But libertarians must ask if an abortion right gives license to initiatory violence. If so, libertarians must not abort the basis of their own movement.

W. James Antle III is a freelance writer and former researcher for a political consulting firm. He is a senior writer for Enter Stage Right and staff columnist for several other webzines.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: abortion; abortionlist; libertarianism; nhs; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 321-331 next last
To: Reagan Man
You don't have a clue as to the court.

Thomas is FOR individual rights. A first trimester pregant woman is still quite definately an individual. - Her fetus, at that point, is not.

101 posted on 05/20/2002 9:27:26 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Zon

Yeah, that C.I.A. spiel on "zonpower for a civilization of the universe" was a great waste of taxpayer money.

102 posted on 05/20/2002 9:28:14 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Libertarians obviously delude themselves into believing that courts confer rights. Up to 3 months and you're an oppressive blob worthy of a trash bin. 3 months and a minute and presto-chango! You have full rights! [sheesh]

103 posted on 05/20/2002 9:33:21 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

Comment #104 Removed by Moderator

Comment #105 Removed by Moderator

To: Goldhammer; Kevin Curry

Fraud and force are just slight inconveniences. They ought to follow tpaine's principled libertarian lead and just clean up the vomit the drunk disgorges on their porch.

106 posted on 05/20/2002 9:38:13 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Thomas is FOR individual rights. A first trimester pregant woman is still quite definitely an individual. - Her fetus, at that point, is not.
101 posted by tpaine

Libertarians obviously delude themselves into believing that courts confer rights.

- No, -- but obviously, - you've deluded YOURself into thinking I've said that.

Up to 3 months and you're an oppressive blob worthy of a trash bin. 3 months and a minute and presto-chango! You have full rights! [sheesh]

Sheesh indeed. - Your delusions overcome your ability to read. -- The USSC said that full rights come with viability.

107 posted on 05/20/2002 9:53:59 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
...In fact you have to forget sequence and potential, it is unenlightening.

Instead, the uniqueness of the human, that which makes a human a human, is not his genetic potential, not his gene code, it is his mind. And the mind doesn't develop right away. I can't tell you when the mind reaches the stage of a human, but it isn't when it is a small clump of cells right after conception.

Thanks for this. You've articulated my "position", so far anyway. Now do the harder part, and tell me when the mind does develop enough to acquire legal protection. (perhaps you do later in the thread)

108 posted on 05/20/2002 10:09:29 PM PDT by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Goldhammer

BTW, how many best sellers or comparative accomplishments have you achieved?

I do not think I'll ever match Zonmaster Wallace Ward's accomplishment of being incarcerated. By the way, has Zonmaster Ward payed out the $10,000 bonuses he owes Neo-Tech "core members" yet?

Just the other day you made a similar remark (see repost below) and I explained that the IRS committed crimes against Dr. Wallace since you obviously didn't take the initiative to get the whole story from the Web site. But maybe you did read it and chose to ignore that key context because it refutes your agenda of portraying Dr. Wallace as a criminal.

Which is probably the truth especially since you're still inverting justice and siding with the criminal IRS and judge that sent an innocent Wallace Ward to jail.

Neo-Tech: fully integrated honesty (FIH) with wide-scope accounting (WSA) and statistical integrations to increase prosperity and happiness for self others and society via discipline, thought and control (DTC).

Dr. Wallace Ward's resume is impressive. A double PhD in physics and a top research scientist at DuPont that invented and took to market three products. That was over thirty years ago and last I heard those products are still being sold in the market. Whereas only twenty percent of research scientists ever get even one product to market in their longer careers.  But his greatest prosperity creating work is with Neo-Tech/Zonpower. Which he retired early from DuPont to put his efforts towards. Thirty-two years of seven-day-a-week twelve-to-sixteen hour days and that's just one man not to mention other writers and researchers' years of work at Neo-Tech Worldwide?

By the way, has Zonmaster Ward payed out the $10,000 bonuses he owes Neo-Tech "core members" yet?

You'll regurgitate anything you read if it suits your agenda while omitting key context that would otherwise refute your assertions. The supposed $10,000 bonus money was not due to those disgruntled employees that tried pulling the equivalent of a reparations theft.

 

To: Goldhammer

Come now, Wallace Ward (a.k.a Dr Frank Wallace, a.k.a John Flint) was a crook who spent time in jail. He invented Neo-Tech.

He didn't invent Neo-Tech, he discovered the Neo-Tech matrix.. Yes the political-agenda justice system and an ego-justice judge sent Dr. Wallace Ward to prison for ten months? Why did they send him to prison? For not paying his fair share of income tax. The major problem is that he actually overpaid his income tax for all the years in question -- I've seen the tax filings for those years. Mostly on the part of the judge, he knew that Dr. Wallace was innocent but sent an innocent man to prison nonetheless. The judge is the crook, not Dr. Wallace.

Dr. Wallace has several pen names that he publishes under. Use of pen names is common in the book publishing industry. I didn't miss your attempt to make the a.k.a.s look ominously like a criminal hiding behind aliases to hide a criminal identity. A little honesty on your part would be welcome.

Also, Wallace never used Neo-Tech to hide any crimes. It cannot be done. If you read the Neo-Tech Discovery you would know why it is impossible. Wallace has used Neo-Tech several dozen times to protect his interests from neocheaters' attacks. Neo-Tech expose criminals but cannot hide them.

264 posted on 5/17/02 7:21 AM Eastern by Zon


109 posted on 05/20/2002 10:17:24 PM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
tell me when the mind does develop enough to acquire legal protection.

I don't know exactly. And reasonable people can reasonably disagree.

A similar question is when a child becomes an adult. You know though, some never do, and some do a lot younger than the average.

tpaine's point in #96 seems to say it as well I could. A reasonable but arbitrary point, as opposed to an unreasonably arbitrary point.

For the record, by the way, I believe a woman retains sovereignty over her body ALWAYS and can expell a fetus at any point she chooses. The question is how you treat the expelled entity -- as a human or not. Viability and other estimations of human life speak to that point -- and not whether a woman MUST bring a birth to term (there are always death risks with live birth and a woman should never be forced to risk her own life for another if she chooses not to.)

110 posted on 05/20/2002 10:18:31 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Zon
He didn't invent Neo-Tech, he discovered the Neo-Tech matrix..

Come on, you are not real are you? Or do you actually wear a propeller beanie?

111 posted on 05/20/2002 10:19:53 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Zon
This Ward character seems all the more scandalous and criminal with your supposed 'defense' of him. Everyone in prison claims they are innocent. It's an old, tired canard you are playing, only made interesting by your utter zeal for zaniness, O Zon.
112 posted on 05/20/2002 10:26:41 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Do you actually think your beanie cracks are wise?

Whatta dork.

113 posted on 05/20/2002 10:27:12 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Drunk again/still?
114 posted on 05/20/2002 10:28:31 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Says that zany master of Enlightened Yogi-ism, -- our very own jihadic cultist!

Whatta goof.

115 posted on 05/20/2002 10:31:39 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Nope. -- You?
116 posted on 05/20/2002 10:32:34 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

From the Planet Beano, the BeanieMaster has discovered the Beanie Matrix (B.M.) which alone leads to (A.L.T.) Wealth and POWER !!!!

117 posted on 05/20/2002 10:33:05 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Nope. -- You?

Naw, not while I am cleaning my guns.

118 posted on 05/20/2002 10:34:53 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
You guys never tire of trying to link a philosophy with a political party. Vacant minds never produce anything of substance.
119 posted on 05/20/2002 10:35:26 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
You guys never tire of trying to link a philosophy with a political party.

So, libertarianism is a philosophy? LOL

120 posted on 05/20/2002 10:38:05 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 321-331 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson