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.
Why? Those anti-abortion advocates in the LP continue to remain in the LP in spite of its rather overwhelming majority in favor of female sovereignty over her own body. I guess they are sufficiently comfortable -- it's not like the Republicans or Democrats give them anywhere else to go.
There is nothing more amusing on this green earth than watching one religion call the other religion gullible.
What? Athena is god, is she not?
LOL, no one plays me for a sucker. I've been around American politics for the last 35 years and the name of the game is to win elections. If you don't win elections, you don't get the opportunity to have the power and influence required, to effcet real change in all the aspects of American life, society, culture and government. That's the problem with the Libertarian Party and libertarians in general. They can't convince enough American's they deserve the publics trust, to carry out the will of the people and in the best interests of the country. You libertarians are political novices, who have no understanding of what American politics is all about. The proof is in the pudding. You guys are perpetual political losers.
Aside from being men of great wisdom and intelligence and of course, first class revolutionaries, the Founding Fathers were consumate politicians. The Founding Fathers were practical, reasonable men, who knew how the nature of politics works and the need to compromise and negotiate. That's how they created the Constitution and this great Republic we live in.
Libertarians have a lot to learn about America politics in the 21st century. If I was you, I'd start learning how to play the political game, now!
-- Thank you, - that is exactly my case. - But the fact that challenges have little effect, points more to bad lawmaking & bad lawyers, than to any failure of our constitutional system.
As I said earlier, medical advances will soon allow 'pro-life' people to put there money up where there mouths are, - and 'save' unwanted babys with artifical methods. -- Two bits there are very few takers. -- In effect, they are pro-life, as long as someone else is responsible for nurturing & rearing that life.
I don't get it. What happens to some people. They otherwise act responsibly then all of a sudden they get paranoid and forget to act responsible.
Windsong, Goldhammer's post #78 it is right up your alley. Hop on it. Or would you like me to help?
I think abortion is murder. And as with hate crime laws, I don't think we need laws against abortion. Murdering another human being is already against the law.
Dave in Eugene (a Republican with a small l that is getting larger every day)
Again you champion that old, tired, discredited liberal ideal:
"Allow me to be irresponsible, and I'll allow you all to pay for the consequences of my irresponsibility."
Based upon your proselytization, we'll have to rename libertarianism: "freeloaderism."
Yeah, I noticed how the GOP is on the verge of overturning abortion on demand. heh heh
If that was ever a real principle more than a PR gimick to attract the gullible, it has been sold out more often than 10 cent burgers at MacDonald's.
To be honest, I don't think tpaine is on my side, but I could be wrong. Which is really neither here nor there because he and I respect and tolerate each others differences. So I guess in that sense we are on the same side -- mature and tolerant.
Quite so. In fact you have to forget sequence and potential, it is unenlightening.
It's being (human being, of course) and actuality that matter. The point of looking at the sequence is to see where the new being begins.
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 develope 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.
I would hardly think a baby measures up. Newborn A.J.Armitage was hardly ready to argue over abortion. And what about severely retarded people? And if they do qualify as human by the mind standard, then a few animals probably do too. So do babies and retards have no rights? Do they have some rights, but not others, along with some animals? Or maybe the same rights, but they can be overriden whenever a full human finds it necessary, or even just convenient. Which leads to the question: shouldn't smart "persons" get more rights than dumb ones? I don't mean more income, since that's just a result of equal rights to make contracts, but actual rights. If rights are based on having a developed mind, why not have gradations based on IQ or education? If you say that once you meet the "human" level you get the full set of rights equal to every one else, I have a question: why?
Showing your ignorance once again, I see. Roe v. Wade, won't be overturned, until Scalia, Reinquest and Thomas have two more conservatives to join them on the bench. A majority of five is needed to reverse any past decision. But I don't expect you to understand that, because as with all aspects of politics, you can't grasp the complex nature of the US Supreme Court. There are nine justices, but you can't count that high. I guess math wasn't one of your strong subjects.
Keep trying, may be one day you'll get it.
-------------------------------
Yep, NO ONE can tell us when that happens, - when a human form is endowed with its inalienable rights.
So the USSC made a constitutional decision; - an embryo is an integral part of its mother till the end of the first trimester. -- From then till viablity, its abortion can be 'regulated'. -- After viablity, it is a human being, with full rights.
Fairly simple, legally. -- Unacceptable to those who are obsessively driven to control others.
Sure there is. There's also a Liberal Party. They're both in Wew York, but that is part of America, after all. They're both obviously viable, since they've been around forever. And they do have elected officeholders, since NY election law allows a candidate to run as the candidate of more than one party; if the R or D is acceptable, he gets the nomination.
Poker, A Guaranteed Income for Life by Using the Advanced Concepts of Poker.
Excellent poker book. But the real power is in the metaphors. First published over thirty years ago it became the best selling poker book of all time. Dr. Wallace took it out of print in the late seventies. Now it's on their Web site and can be read for free.
BTW, how many best sellers or comparative accomplishments have you achieved?
Also, did you read my #87 post to you? If not, please do.
I was talking about a national political party, capable of winning at all levels.
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.