Point/Counter Point of the Month

Abortion: Pro-Life Versus Pro-Choice

By: Amanda Carey and Anon

Posted: 1/24/10

Amanda Carey

Abortion: Pro-life

Some say that it is impossible to be libertarian and pro-life; that in fact, not being pro-choice goes against the libertarian ideal of maximum individual liberty. Libertarianism holds that government should be limited to the functions of defense, courts, and police; only individual freedom is compatible with human nature; and rights need the utmost protection.

So are pro-life libertarians compromising on those values? In a word: no. Even Rep. Ron Paul once said, "Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual."

First of all, being pro-life doesn't necessarily mean being in favor of federal law making abortion illegal. One acceptable option is to let the issue go to the states, and allow citizens to vote. But the question still remains, how can any libertarian in good conscience not allow a woman her "right" to choose?

As with every debate about abortion, it always goes back to the concept and definition of life. Is a fetus a life? Some argue that yes, life begins at conception. Others say life begins at birth. The scientific and intellectual communities are in many ways, split down the middle.

But the thing one needs to consider is that while fetuses can't necessarily reason, neither can a baby who is one day old. Pro-choice and pro-lifers agree that once a baby is born, killing it or letting it die is murder. So what makes a newborn baby so different and worthy of life when literally one minute prior, it was still inside its mother's womb? Does that one minute really make that much of a difference?

Some might say yes because after a baby is born it is no longer dependent on its mother for its life to be sustained. But a newborn baby IS dependent on its mother (or at least another guardian) to stay alive. It cannot feed itself, clothe itself, or protect itself. That baby is completely defenseless, just like it was prenatally.

The "ability to reason" argument is a common one for those who advocate that fetuses aren't persons. Yet in America, the mentally incapacitated are still protected of their right to life. So why isn't a fetus, whose mental incapacitation is only temporary?

Furthermore, libertarians hold the sanctity of life above all else. Along with that is the belief that the right to life applies equally to all human beings. That means, among other things, that all human beings have the right to live without the threat of force or aggression. That right transcends all political and legal systems; it exists even in the state of nature, and is a part of man's constitution of being, which is acquired at conception.

Along those same lines, "personhood" is not a legal privilege or arbitrary legal term to be defined by the state. And since it has already been established that the right to life exists outside of any legal or political system, so too, does "personhood."

Many that are pro-choice also argue that abortion should at least be acceptable within the first trimester; as if "personhood" is developmental. But if that were true, so too then would the right to life be developmental. Does that mean then, that the murder of a two-year-old child is less malicious then the murder of someone who is 25? Of course not. A child's life is just as precious as an adult's life. Personhood is a constant.

Therefore, when it comes to abortion, the woman is not a mere bystander who has the right to choose life or death for her unborn child. As has already been established, the right to life exists from nature and presupposes any legal system. The woman is the cause of the fetus's existence and thus has the responsibility and duty to protect the child from harm.

For a party that is so hell-bent on spreading the values of liberty, life, and responsibility (and rightfully so), the pro-choice belief is not the natural position to take. And for those who do, just keep in mind that there was a time when the vast majority of Americans believed African Americans weren't human beings, either.

Anon

Abortion: Pro-Choice

Generally, the "pro-life" argument against abortion rests on the claim that one's right to life begins at conception and that abortion is essentially the murder of the embryo and is therefore a violation of its right to life. The "pro-choice" argument generally rests on the claim that women have a right to control what happens in and to their bodies.

Philosopher Mary Anne Warren holds that moral opposition to abortion is based on the argument that it is wrong to kill the embryo since it is an innocent human being. But Warren differentiates between the term "human being" as meaning (1) a person or (2) a biological human. She defines a person as possessing consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the capacity to communicate, the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness.

While a person does not necessarily need to possess each of these, if something has all five then it definitely is a person whether it is biologically human or not. Similarly, if something has none or perhaps only one then it is not a person, regardless of whether it is biologically human or not. The fetus has at most one of these attributes, consciousness (and this only after it becomes susceptible to pain-the timing of which is disputed), and hence is not a person.

One objection to Warren's argument is the case of infanticide, which points out that infants have only one of Warren's characteristics-consciousness-and hence would have to be accounted non-persons on her view; thus her view would permit not only abortion but infanticide. Warren agrees that infants are non-persons, but denies that infanticide's permissibility. This is because once a human being is born, there is no longer conflict between it and the woman's rights.

Philosopher Judith Thomson argues that abortion is in some circumstances permissible even if the embryo has a right to life. Her central argument involves a thought experiment. Imagine, says Thompson, "that you wake up in bed next to a famous violinist. He is unconscious with a fatal kidney ailment; and because only you happen to have the right blood type to help, the Society of Music Lovers has kidnapped you and plugged your circulatory system into his so that your kidneys can filter poisons from his blood as well as your own. If he is disconnected from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will recover and can be safely disconnected. Thomson takes it that you may permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will kill him. The right to life, Thomson says, does not entail the right to use another person's body, and so in disconnecting the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something-the use of your body-to which he has no right.

Similarly, even if the embryo has a right to life, it does not have a right to use the pregnant woman's body; and so aborting the embryo is permissible in at least some circumstances. However, Thomson notes that the woman's right to abortion does not include the right to directly insist upon the death of the child, should the fetus happen to be viable, that is, capable of surviving outside the womb.

Similarly, influential libertarian writer Murray Rothbard wrote that "no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body" and that therefore the woman has a right to eject the fetus.

Capitalism Magazine also supports the pro-choice position, stating that, "A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb."

In "The Right to Abortion: A Libertarian Defense," the Association of Libertarian Feminists has created what they call a "systematic philosophical defense of the moral case for abortion from a libertarian perspective." It concludes: "To sacrifice existing persons for the sake of future generations, whether in slave labor camps for the utopian nightmares of Marxists or fascists, or in unwanted pregnancies, compulsory childbearing, and furtive coat hanger abortions for the edification of fetus-worshippers, is to establish hell on earth."