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.
Actually, the author fails to show any such difference between an unjoined and joined egg and sperm, for that matter. If he wants to make the case that it is all just a matter of an essential thing regardless of the point in the sequence, then he must follow his logic all the way back -- and not stop at an essentially arbitrary point in the sequence -- the actual joining.
For there are consequences to things like condoms which effectively prevent specific future individuals from being born. Abstinence as well -- stops a future beating heart.
Once you allow the sequence to be aborted at any point -- you have the same ultimate consequences -- the lost to the world forever of a unique human potential. The only recourse is to force women to have babies as fast as they can for as long as they can. An absurd result.
You want abortion illegal? Convince the Several States'.
Of course, this is not a perfect United States and the Constitution is no longer worth the cannabis paper it is written on.
lol. That has to be the funniest thing you have ever said. I know full well that you understand the difference between extinguishing a living entity and not creating one.
The only recourse is to force women to have babies as fast as they can for as long as they can. An absurd result.
No one forces me to do anything. What planet are you on, J? All I am asking is that if you create a life, be responsible enough to bear the consequences instead of acting selfishly and terminating the life of an innocent. That's it. Its called having compassion.
If libertarians want to denounce abortion rights and be known as pro-lifers, thats fine. Some libertarains, have even left the LP and become members of the Liberty Caucus, an political sidewing or offshoot of the Republican Party.
But if libertarians wanted to be real honest about any new found moral convictions in their lives, why not denounce the entire Libertarian Platform, while their at it. Reasonable people still don't support legalizing drugs or prostitution and they don't support diamantling America's military armed forces and criminal jusitce system either.
What an utterly boorish statement. Hopefully, you'll have some new found manners and humility one of these days. You don't have the lock on moral convictions.
Get off the crack. Libertarians don't want to dismantle the armed forces OR dismantle the criminal justice system.
Maybe you need to smoke some pot and relax a little, ReaganMan. Ronnie wouldn't even want to put you in jail for it.
I'm not saying RR was a libertarian. All I am saying is that RR at least understood the principles of libertarianism, and didn't spend his days railing AGAINST libertarianism. RR was against Commies, Reagan Man. Not libertarians.
And he didn't go around purposely distorting and misrepresenting libertarian views.
While the LP platform is intentionally non-committal, saying that reasonable people can disagree, the essence of libertarianism is to never initiate force on another. This would include killing an unborn.
BTW, I have been on picket lines at abortion clinics, so don't try to say that all liberatarians are this or that. Those that I personally know are more socially active and 'conservative' than most Republicans. Church going, gun toting, prolifers who value freedom more than they are firghtened of legalized pot.
Pure propoganda, however freedom loving people cannot also support the current Wo(some)D.
The Libertarian Party Platform plank on abortion says the following:
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.
I guess you'd consider this to be "pro-choice" if you believe that the government should outlaw abortions. On the other hand there are many pro-choice advocates who'd dispute that characterization, because the LP Platform fails to affirmatively support abortion as a government-mandated and Constitutionally-protected right. They would take the second of the above paragraphs as evidence of Libertarian hostility towards abortion.
I think most Libertarians would at least agree that Roe v Wade was a bad Supreme Court decision, since the Constitution does not grant the Federal Government any specific powers to deal with this issue. Hence the Tenth Amendment should be controlling:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In that interview, Reagan was basically talking about his desire for a smaller and less intrusive federal government and how his conservative-republicanism, on that specific issue, was very similiar in regards to the libertarian idea of limited government. Beyond Reagan's basic agreement on that issue, the overwhelming desire for more fiscal responsibility at the federal level, Reagan never claimed to be a libertarian, nor did he support the libertarian agenda, philosophy or ideology.
Ronald Reagan was a moral conservative above all else and a strong law and order (old-guard Democrat) conservative.
Here's some more of what Reagan said about libertarianism.
Now, I can't say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don't each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves.
Reagan also said:
Well, third parties have been notoriously unsuccessful; they usually wind up dividing the very people that should be united. And then we elect the wrong kind-the side we're out to defeat wins.
Lets not confuse Ronald Reagan's mainstream conservatism, with the extreme agenda of the Libertarian Party.
You know that's not true and to distort the truth, only weakens your argument. Seems like you are ashamed of the LP platform. I credit you for being pro-life. But the LP platform says the following:
"We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women... We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice...
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".
That means the LP supports abortion rights for women.
... so don't try to say that all liberatarians are this or that.
I mentioned the Liberty Caucus, which are former libertarians who are now pro-life. So don't throw stones at me, bucko.
"We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women... We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice... we believe the government should be kept out of the question [of abortion]".
No discriminating laws against women, no restrictions on free choice and no government intervention, against killing innocent human infants, living in a womans womb. As I already said, this means the LP supports abortion rights for women.
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.
The author was doing well until this point. Rape is no excuse to murder an innocent child. Two wrongs don't make a right, as most of us were taught. In the case of the mother's life at risk, ethically everything must be done to save both lives. If the author is claiming that rape or the potential for medical crisis excuses or allows murder because the mother hadn't offered her informed consent first, then every single human being who was ever born should likewise be allowed to murder their own parents for consigning them to a potential lifetime of pain and emotional distress, which is nonsense. The equation missing from the author's piece is the Author of life.
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.