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.

The point of my post was that our law--THE Law, the Constitution of the United States--doesn't recognize the unborn as being "persons"...exactly as slaves were not recognized as "persons" until the 13th amendment. Therefore, the unborn have no more Constitutional rights than monkeys. The only LEGITIMATE way to grant Constitutional rights to the unborn is to pass a Constitutional amendment...exactly as the 13th (and 14th) Amendments changed the Constitution to recognize rights for the former without-rights slaves.

That is the most tortured reading of the Constitution's view of life I could ever imagine.

I guess if one doesn't believe in a creator, that part of the statement is moot to them, so instead we have our lives GIVEN to us by a piece of paper. Incredible.

You can begin to see what a libertarian US would look like, can't you? It certainly make you see why some were uncomfortable with the concept of a "Bill of Rights" in the first place.

Perhaps GE and Cal Thomas can help him figure out "when it is"...

Cal Thomas

Bringing a very good thing to light

General Electric, which traces its history to 1878 when Thomas Edison established the Edison Electric Light Company, has been responsible for enhancing the quality of human life in many ways.

It adds to that tradition with a new ultrasound device that allows doctors and parents to look inside the womb of a pregnant woman and see the image of a baby in "real-time 4D" rather than the more difficult to read traditional "2D" image.

GE is running a TV commercial that's more exciting to watch than most programs. It shows the face of a woman as she reacts to seeing her baby for the first time. We also see her husband, an unusual twist on TV. If this scene doesn't touch you in the deepest recesses of your heart, the device could determine whether you have a heart. There's also a Web site where the commercial can be viewed (www.gemedicalsystems.com/rad/us/4d/index.html). Over the song, "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face," an announcer says, "When you see your baby for the first time on the new GE 4D Ultrasound system, it really is a miracle."

A press release from GE touts the medical benefits expected to come from the device because doctors will be able to see the developing child more clearly, enabling them to better diagnose potential problems. But this device may have some unintended consequences in the cultural battle over the meaning and value of human life.

The clarity of the image resembles a high quality photograph. Everyone who sees such a picture will find it extremely difficult to regard the image as anything but that of a baby; not a "fetus," not a "product of conception," not disembodied tissue. The hands move. So does the head. Does the baby's status change because the parents love him or her and want their child to be delivered safely so they can hold in their arms what the mother now holds in her womb? Or does the child inherit an intrinsic right to life separate from what politicians, lawyers, judges and even the woman herself might think?

This, of course, is the great debate. Which side we come down on has implications and applications not only for abortion, but in relation to end-of-life issues and in-between ones, like cloning.

In more than 30 years of speaking to pregnancy help centers, I've met hundreds of women who've had abortions. Virtually all have told me that if they'd seen a picture of their baby, they would have made a different choice. They've also told me that many abortion clinics turn sonogram machines in such a way that the mother is prevented from seeing her baby's image on the screen.

In an age when federal law mandates labels on cans, bottles and cars and truth-in-lending information at banks, why should women be denied information when it comes to a far more important choice about another human life? Few people regret choosing one car over another, or a can of string beans over a can of corn. But many women with whom I've spoken profoundly regret deciding to have an abortion and say their choice would have been different had they seen the person most directly affected by the procedure.

In a press release, GE quotes Michelle Tooms, a patient from Mansfield, Texas, who could see her baby on the GE 4D machine: "On other ultrasound systems, my doctor pointed to my baby's anatomy on the monitor and I couldn't understand what the doctor was trying to explain. With GE's 4D ultrasound, the quality was amazing. I even think I saw the baby smile. The images made me feel close to her." (italics mine). GE publicity does not suggest the Ultrasound 4D be used in the war against abortion, yet it will be and should be. At $120,000, the machine is expensive, but every pregnancy help center should have one and the law should require every pregnant woman seeking an abortion to view this image of her baby. It might even make her smile and decide to bring another "good thing" to life. questions?

** The Expanding Personhood **

What is a person?
What is a human?
The answer to that question is continually expanding.
Different races were seen as somehow less than human;
Indeed, anyone who was different.
The Elephant Man was seen as somehow sub-human.
He could be ridiculed, abused, placed on display at carnivals.
People who were born without all the "right" proportions,
Again, somehow less than human.
Left-handed people, treated as objects of suspicion,
Considered as "sinister."
They offer "left-handed compliments."
An unborn child,
Called a "parasitic lump of cells,"
A "non-person."
We can see the development of an expanding awareness,
Of a more and more inclusive definition of humanity,
In the eyes of the world,
Coming to view people less and less with superstition.
This development comes from God,
Directing His Church to bring Gospel-Light to the world,
To ALL humanity.

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.