Abortion and Libertarianism

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.

Heres the whole list.

Music Dr. Demento Neil Peart (Rush) John Popper (Blues Traveler) Radio Talk Show Hosts Art Bell Neal Boortz David Brudnoy Gene Burns Larry Elder Mike Foudy Gary Nolan Judy Jarvis Lowell Ponte (partial list -- for a complete list of every known libertarian talk show host in America, state by state, including show times and stations, click here.) Milton Friedman Nobel Prize Winners Friedrich Hayek, economics Milton Friedman, economics James Buchanan, economics Pulitzer Prize Winners Dave Barry Walter Williams Syndicated Columnists Doug Bandow Dave Barry Stephen Chapman James Glassman Joseph Sobran Thomas Sowell Jacob Sullum Vin Suprynowicz Walter Williams Journalism Alan Bock James Bovard Bill Bradford Matt Drudge Glenn Garvin James Glassman Carl Oglesby Virginia Postrel Michael Prowse Jay Severin Richard Winger (ballot law expert) "A revolution is sweeping through America today -- as Americans have grown impatient with big government." -- Harry Browne Financial Writers Harry Browne Doug Casey Robert Prechter Robert Ringer Daniel Rosenthal Mark Skousen Business Leaders Robert E. (Bob) Bidwell Richard Branson Dan Fylstra David Koch John Mackey Marty Zweig Economists James Buchanan Walter Block Richard M. Ebeling David Friedman Milton Friedman Friedrich Hayek Robert Higgs Ludwig von Mises Murray N. Rothbard Thomas Sowell Mark Thornton Richard Timberlake Walter Williams Thomas Szasz Psychiatry & Psychology Nathaniel Branden Peter Breggin Michael R. Edelstein Thomas Szasz Philosophy John Hospers Tibor Machan Jan Narveson Robert Nozick Feminism Wendy McElroy Tonie Nathan Joan Kennedy Taylor Science Fiction Writers James P. Hogan Robert Heinlein Victor Koman Brad Linaweaver Charles Platt J. Neal Schulman L. Neil Smith F. Paul Wilson Robert Anton Wilson Mystery Writers Stuart M. Kaminsky Mary Ruwart Non-Fiction Writers Norma Jean Almodovar Doug Bandow David Bergland David Boaz James Bovard Barbara Branden Nathaniel Branden Roy Childs, Jr. Michael Cloud Richard A. Epstein Al Goldstein Jeffrey Rogers Hummel Bill Kauffman Richard Kostelanetz Wendy McElroy Charles Murray Peter McWilliams Durk Pearson Earl Ravenal Justin Raimondo Sheldon Richman Mary Ruwart Irwin Schiff Sandy Shaw George Smith Joan Kennedy Taylor "The most important element of a free society... is the rejection of the initiation of violence." -- Ron Paul (R-TX) Members of Congress Ron Paul (R-Texas) Libertarian Presidential Candidates John Hospers Roger MacBride Ed Clark David Bergland Ron Paul Andre Marrou Harry Browne Libertarian Office Holders (extensive list being compiled) Heads of Think Tanks, Political Organizations, etc. John Baden, Foundation for Rational Economic Education Joseph Bast, Heartland Institute Clint Bolick, Institute for Justice Donald J. Boudreaux. Foundation for Economic Education Steve Buckstein, Cascade Policy Institute Alejandro Chafuen, Atlas Institute Ed Crane, Cato Institute David Bergland, Libertarian Party USA Marshall Fritz, Separation of School & State Alliance Sharon Harris, Advocates for Self-Government Jacob G. Hornberger, Future of Freedom Foundation Roy Innis, Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) Vince Miller, International Society of Individual Liberty Robert Poole, Reason Foundation Andrea Rich, Laissez Faire Books Lew Rockwell, Ludwig Von Mises Institute Fr. Robert Sirico, Acton Institute Fred Smith, Competitive Enterprise Institute David J. Theroux, The Independent Institute Clifford Thies, Republican Liberty Caucus "May it be to the world... to enjoy the blessings of self-government." -- Thomas Jefferson Historical Champions of Liberty Lao-tzu John Locke Algernon Sidney Adam Smith Patrick Henry Thomas Jefferson James Otis Thomas Paine George Mason John Stuart Mill Richard Cobden John Bright Frederic Bastiat Benjamin Tucker Lysander Spooner Herbert Spencer Franz Oppenheimer Albert Jay Nock H.L. Mencken Garett Garrett Henry Hazlitt John T. Flynn Frank Chodorov Friedrich Hayek Ludwig von Mises Rose Wilder Lane Isabel Paterson Ayn Rand Leonard Read F.A. Harper Willis Stone Robert LeFevre Founders of the Modern Libertarian Movement Late 1950s through Early 1970s Don Ernsberger Karl Hess Manny Klausner David Nolan Robert Poole Murray N. Rothbard David Walter Jarret Wollstein

A particularly useful way little way to look at the abortion issue goes something like this (not my idea, mind you). Suppose you are washing dishes and your child comes up behind you and asks, "Can I kill this?" I would imagine the first response would be to find out what "it" is. You don't just keep washing dishes and reply, "sure, go ahead". You would turn around a inquire.

This is the problem with the whole abortion debate. Nobody is asking what "it" is, but rather raising issues about a woman's right to choose. The answer to the woman's right to choose cannot be answered until we answer, "Choose to do what?" Susan Smith chose to kill her children because they were inconvenient and infringing on her freedom, but her freedom doesn't trump her children's right to life.

The Roe v Wade decision is not neutral. The court decided that some human beings are not protected under the law. Imagine if the court had said, "We don't know if life begins at 5 years old, so we are going to leave that decision to the mother." The court did decide to a point when life begins.

I, for one, don't have the time to list the items in Hayek's The Constitutuion of Liberty and Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Vision that seperate them from libertarianism, but they are extensive and pointed. Why do they always get included in such lists despite not claiming to be libertarians?

I didn't make the list. Take it up with the web site.

In the mean time, just because someone doesn't agree with all the tenets of a particular label doesn't preclude most people from classifing themselves in broad catagories.

despite not claiming to be libertarians?

Incorrect. If you have have read other books by Sowell you not will be surprised to see him classify himself as a libertarian. I have almost all of his books and have seen him put it in writing.

I sure hope you aren't going to sign up with Roscoe in claiming that everyone who claims they are something are indeed what they claim. And everyone speaks for everyone else. He is quite mentally ill.

I was expressing suprise at their inclusion, not asking you to answer for what you posted.

My high opinion of Sowell would not change if he were to say he was, or wasn't, a libertarian in his own mind. I just don't recall ever reading anything of his that cites that he does. In the Conflict of Visions he makes quite a point of citing how the libertarian view is quite conflicted on the issues of Rights by siding with those of the Unconstrained View and appears to be labeling them inconsistent and ungrounded because of it. Can you cite me a quotation and the work or article it is taken from if you have a chance. I don't believe there is one that I am aware of.

Hayek, is even less a conservative, I would agree. In shunning both labels for application to himself, he instead claimed 'Old Whig' which I particularly liked.

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.