In CRISIS
I addressed the subject of same-sex marriage in an article
on June 8. There I argued that there is no libertarian position on
same-sex marriage. I address here the subject of libertarianism and
abortion.
What I recently said about abortion in my article “Should
Libertarians Be Conservatives” that ruffled the feathers of some
libertarians was this:
I have argued
that because the non-aggression axiom is central to libertarianism, and
because force is justified only in self-defense, and because it is
wrong to threaten or initiate violence against a person or his property,
and because killing is the ultimate form of aggression that, to be
consistent, libertarians should be opposed to abortion.
The link I gave was to my article “Is Ron Paul Wrong on Abortion?” in which I said these things:
Why should it be considered libertarian to kill a baby in
the womb or unlibertarian to oppose such killing? And even worse, why
would a libertarian say that it was unlibertarian to advocate killing
foreigners in an aggressive war but not unlibertarian to kill a baby in
the womb?
Killing someone is the ultimate form of aggression. Especially a
helpless, defenseless fetus that is only guilty of suddenly waking up in
a womb. The fetus certainly had no control over being a parasite,
aggressing against a woman, invading a woman’s body, or adding unwanted
pounds to his host – but its mother certainly did. If an unborn child is
not entitled to protection of life, then to be consistent, libertarians
should have no problem with the abortion of a fetus from one month old
to nine months old. The nine-month old fetus is no more viable than the
one-month old one. In fact, a one-month old baby has the same degree of
viability. I hate to be so crude, but leave all three of them unattended
on a table in a hospital and see what happens.
Why should it be considered libertarian to kill a baby in the womb or
unlibertarian to oppose such killing? This has nothing to do with
giving the government greater control over a woman’s body; it has
everything to do with preventing aggression and protecting innocent
life.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned and abortion laws were once
again made the provision of the states, there would be nothing
unlibertarian about supporting state laws making abortion a crime just
as laws against murder, manslaughter, and wrongful death are considered
legitimate actions of the states.
I base my statements about abortion on the libertarian non-aggression principle, which I believe is also a biblical principle, or else I wouldn’t hold to it.
According to the late Murray Rothbard here and here:
The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no
one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s
person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who
commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive
violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a
non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced
the entire corpus of libertarian theory.
Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against
violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense
is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore,
is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent
invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person
or property of another.
And according to Rothbard’s disciple Walter Block here and here:
Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It [is] concerned solely
with the proper use of force. Its core premise is that it should be
illegal to threaten or initiate violence against a person or his
property without his permission; force is justified only in defense or
retaliation.
The libertarian position on anything is based on the question of,
Does it violate the non aggression principle (NAP) about initiating or
threatening physical violence. If so, the libertarian position is that
it should be illegal, and punished by the full force of the law. If not,
the libertarian position is that it should be legal, and it would be
unjustified to use physical violence against the person who engages in
that act.
Because a child in the womb is helpless, not initiating violence, not
committing aggression, and not there of its own accord, I believe that,
to be consistent, libertarians should not only be opposed to abortion,
but in favor of making it a criminal act just like murder, rape,
kidnapping, theft, assault, and robbery would be in any libertarian
society based on the non-aggression principle.
Now, what sort of penalty should be imposed, how criminality would be
determined, how to divide culpability between the woman and her doctor,
how to handle situations where pregnancy is the result of rape or
incest, how to handle situations where parents force their pregnant
teenage daughter to get an abortion, how far along the pregnancy has to
be, etc., etc., etc. are things that would have to be determined that I
don’t profess to have precise answers to. But, aside from premeditated,
witnessed, proven-beyond-a-doubt first degree murder, neither do I have
precise answers as to what the penalty should be for manslaughter, rape,
kidnapping, theft, assault, or robbery.
I reproduce below relevant portions of interaction regarding the
subject of abortion that I had with five “pro-choice” libertarians.
Judging from the whole of what they wrote to me, I don’t expect to
change their minds. My responses follow.
Libertarian Pro-Choice Argument 1
Try as I might, I can’t reconcile a position favoring
small, non-intrusive government, with support for the criminalization of
abortion, which necessarily involves the government sticking its nose
into doctors’ examining rooms, and one could say, into the orifices of
any woman being examined there.”
It cannot be denied that pregnancy is inherently dangerous, therefore
any abortion can always be justified as defensive, not initiated force.
It is an unpleasant fact that we all start our lives as parasites, and a
potential mother has no more obligation to support such a parasite in
her body than the body politic has to support “welfare parasites.”
I would kindly ask that you either: 1) Don’t tell people that you’re a
libertarian if you’re going to defend a “pro-life” position, or 2)
Don’t tell people you’re pro-life if you’re going to defend a
libertarian position.
People like you are “spoiling the brand name,” and if folks hear you
advocate both libertarianism and anti-abortionism, it may reinforce
their false belief that we are far-right wingers.
Libertarian Pro-Choice Argument 2
[T]he right to life does not include the right to live at
the expense of another. If it does, then government wealth
redistribution is OK, right? Making abortion illegal again would turn
the gift of life into just another entitlement coerced by government
force.
Also, I am given to understand that quite often a fertilized egg
fails to implant in the lining of the uterus and is expelled during
menstruation, making God, if you will, perhaps the biggest performer of
abortions.”
Libertarian Pro-Choice Argument 3
I would like to someday hear from the “Pro-lifers” how we
would deal with a pregnant woman that does not want to carry her unborn
fetus to the full term and give birth to a child. What does a
“libertarian” society do with her? What does a “libertarian” society do
with her…legally?
Tell us how to be libertarians and advocate criminal activity to
abortion. Tell us what we SHOULD DO legally when a woman chooses to
abort. Is it OK to put her in a straitjacket in a padded cell and force
feed her to keep her and her fetus healthy?
How should the law deal with an unwanted pregnancy. And by the way to
your question “Should abortion be legal at anytime before the child is
born?” My answer is yes. You and I may not like the choice someone makes
but as long as we have the “right to life” I can’t see any other
meaning to that than the right to our own life. The woman makes the
choice and will have to live with it her entire life.
Libertarian Pro-Choice Argument 4
The bureaucratic apparatus that would be required to
actually prevent and/or punish even a fraction of abortions would be
overarching, imposing, and by necessity invade the privacy of all women.
It would be but another tentacle of the already metastasized and
gut-wrenchingly corrupt “justice” system that has – with little effect
on crime – built a gulag system filled with more hopeless convicts than
any other time in history or place in the world. And you’d like to add
to this? Really? Should we not be focused on limiting, or better yet
removing, state power?
Such an apparatus would necessarily impose force and coercion, and as
such be the antithesis of “libertarian.” Frankly, I think this is why
so many “conservative” politicians slobber over the issue, it would
allow them more justification to spend more money on prisons and police
while engendering a tumescent response from their latent sadism.
It really doesn’t matter if abortion itself is “libertarian” or not,
any attempt to stop it would require un-libertarian means. Just as there
can never really be a libertarian war, since all war harms the
innocent.
Libertarian Pro-Choice Argument 5
I personally take the Rothbardian position that while
regrettable that the fetus cannot live outside the mother’s womb, it is
slavery to force a woman to carry an unwanted child to term. A woman’s
right to have an abortion has nothing to do with a woman’s “right to
privacy” and everything to do with her right of self-ownership. You
wouldn’t allow anyone to forcibly insert any object into your body
without your consent. By the same token, it would be well within your
rights to remove an object consensually inserted into your body at any
time. This is the most basic application of your inalienable right of
self-ownership.
I see perhaps nine things that I need to address.
First, opposition to abortion is not an exclusively far-right wing or
conservative position. This was the whole point of my original article,
“Should Libertarians Be Conservatives?” Libertarians who advocate
“anti-abortionism” shouldn’t abandon their position so they won’t be
mistaken for conservatives anymore than they should abandon their
advocacy of lower taxes, the free market, and other things that liberals
associate with the right wing. And if a libertarian
advocates ”pro-abortionism,” won’t it reinforce the false belief that
libertarians are far left-wingers?
Second, although it is true that “often a fertilized egg fails to
implant in the lining of the uterus and is expelled during
menstruation,” this doesn’t necessarily make God the “biggest performer
of abortions.” Just because God allows something to happen doesn’t mean
he’s the cause of it. Otherwise he would be responsible for all
abortions. God “giveth to all life, and breath, and all things” (Acts
17:25) and “in him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28).
As the author of life, God can take life anytime he chooses in any
manner he chooses.
Third, if an act violates the non-aggression principle, as I believe
abortion does, then I think it inherently means that it should be
punished in some way. Thus, to be consistent, pro-life libertarians
should also support the criminalization of abortion just like they
support the criminalization of other acts of aggression like murder and
robbery. The fact that there may be no living victim to seek restitution
and that all those who had knowledge of the victim (woman, boyfriend,
doctor, nurse) preferred him dead is irrelevant just like it is in the
case of the murder of someone who is already out of the womb.
Fourth, that the U.S. has a corrupt criminal justice system and a
gulag filled with hopeless convicts there is no doubt. But abortion is
not a victimless crime like drug use that should just be ignored. And
just because the system is bad doesn’t mean that genuine acts of
aggression should go unpunished. I am in favor of adding to prison anyone guilty of real crimes (assuming that prison should be the punishment) and removing
from prison anyone not guilty of real crimes. And I should also add
that abortion should not be a federal crime anymore than murder, rape,
or robbery should be federal crimes. Most federal crimes (the ones that
are really crimes, not the ones like taking unlicensed dentures across
state lines) should not be federal crimes at all.
Fifth, criminalizing abortion would not lead to a greater police
state that increases the bureaucratic apparatus and violates privacy.
The fact is, we already have a police state, and it’s not because
murder, robbery, and other real crimes are prosecuted. If abortion were
illegal, it would no more entail the government sticking its nose in
doctors’ offices and women’s wombs than murder being illegal means that
the government stations agents in every home, bar, and alley waiting for
a murder to take place.
Sixth, no pro-life libertarian believes in aggression to prevent
possible or potential aggression. It would therefore not be okay to
enslave a pregnant woman by forcing her “to carry an unwanted child to
term” or put her “in a straitjacket in a padded cell and force feed her
to keep her and her fetus healthy.” It would not be permissible to use
“un-libertarian means” to stop abortion. It’s not the job of the
government – whatever form it appears in – to prevent crime. A criminal
act is not a criminal act until it is committed. Preventing abortion
would be no different than preventing other crimes. The way to stop
abortion is by persuading pregnant women to not undergo abortions or
educating them sufficiently in the pro-life position before they get
pregnant so they won’t consider abortion an option should they get
pregnant. People so inclined to kill, rape, or rob should be persuaded
not to kill, rape, or rob or be educated to the extent that they would
never be so inclined.
Seventh, although a fetus is a “parasite” in the sense that it lives
inside, is dependent upon, and obtains nutriments from a host, I hasten
to point out that a newborn baby is totally dependent upon someone to
feed and take care of it as well. Even a six-month-old baby left to
itself will soon die. Is it okay to just throw parasitical children in
the trash with aborted babies? A child in the womb a week before birth
is just as much a parasite as a child in the womb six months before
birth. Are libertarians who advocate abortion on demand ready to allow
the procedure at any time before birth in the name of consistency? And
what about the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion?
Eighth, certainly it is equally true that no object should be
forcibly inserted into one’s body and that one would be well within his
rights to remove, not only an object inserted without consent, but any
object consensually inserted. But we are talking about a child here, not
a choice.
When a woman engages in an activity the natural consequence of which
is pregnancy, she is obligating herself to bring to term a completely
separate individual with uniquely different DNA that didn’t choose to
“invade” her body or “aggress” against her. To be consistent, pro-choice
libertarians should limit their argument here to pregnancy in the case
of rape, a very rare occurrence. But even in the case of pregnancy via
rape, it is the result of the aggression of someone else that the woman
is pregnant, not the child which has, through no fault of its own, been
inserted into the woman’s body. If someone owned a ship and discovered a
child on board that someone had stowed away, would he be well within
his rights to throw the child overboard for being a trespasser? Should
he not rather give the child up safely at the end of his voyage?
And finally, based on everything I have said thus far, it should be
obvious that if a pregnant woman doesn’t want to keep her baby – for
whatever reason – then I see no other alternative for her than to have
her baby and then give it up for adoption. If money is an issue, there
are pro-life organizations that will care for women during their
pregnancy.
But I think pro-lifers have dropped the ball here. If pro-lifers
would pay women with unwanted pregnancies to not abort their child,
carry it to term, and give it up for adoption, they would do more to
prevent abortions than they are doing now. But would not some women get
pregnant just for the cash? Certainly, but there have always been and
always will be women that will do unusual things for money. Even now
some women have more children just to get increased welfare benefits.
But even if a small percentage of women become baby factories because
they got paid to carry babies to term, it would still be better than
having a million abortions every year which occurs now in the United
States. And since I mentioned adoption, let me also say that the state
should get completely out of the adoption business and leave it entirely
up to the free market.
I have not undertaken here a systematic defense of the libertarian
pro-life position. I have merely addressed the concerns of those who
wrote me.
One of the people who wrote me said that libertarians are pro-choice
on everything. I see nothing libertarian about a woman choosing to kill
her unborn child for getting in the way of her lifestyle.
