A Libertarian Perspective on Abortion
Posted on November 17, 2009 by Dan Linehan
Most libertarians are pro-choice, but some feel that the act of abortion breaks the non-aggression principle because the mother seems to be attacking the fetus.
Pro-life advocates see abortions as killing a living baby, an act of aggression from the mother towards the fetus. Pro-choice supporters see abortion as being strictly the woman’s choice, as the fetus is living inside, and at the expense of, the mother’s body.
The mother has unalienable rights, granted to her by the United States Declaration of Independence. But what rights does the fetus have?
This question sums up the crux of the abortion debate. The differences in philosophical vantage point are rarely discussed at rational face value.
To answer the question properly we have to mentally divide the process of having an abortion into two separate acts: the act of eviction, and the act of terminating gestation.
The act of eviction addresses the woman’s right of choice. Once the fetus is evicted from the mother’s body, the mother’s rights are no longer being infringed on. And asking for an eviction is perfectly valid, natural right: no being has a right to live on as a parasite inside of, or on another person’s body.
The act of terminating gestation is ethically contingent on viability. If the fetus is viable, meaning that it has a capacity to survive post-eviction, it has a right to life. Surviving independently of the womb is a crucial benchmark of life. Until that benchmark is reached, the fetus is not a person and does not have natural rights, as it cannot survive apart from the mother.
By breaking up the act of abortion into these two parts, we can see the morality involved in the process much more clearly. The woman always has a right to an eviction. If she invokes that right of eviction when the fetus is not yet viable the result will be a standard abortion. If the fetus is viable, if it can survive apart from the mother, then the fetus has reached the threshold needed to obtain natural rights.
Centering abortion rights around viability is the most rational way to approach the issue. This approach also stands up to the tests of technological progress. If evicted fetuses become viable at much earlier ages due to technological improvements, the same philosophies still apply. The mother could always request an eviction, and the baby would live on in the hospital for the remainder of the time it would normally be in the womb.
Comments (32)
Does this mean if a person develops a disability in which they are no longer able to sustain themselves without the help of others they have lost their right to life? What if this person is capable of healing from (or in this case, growing out of) this disability?
Disabled people can survive outside the womb. That’s the definition of viability.
Even the newborn baby cannot survive outside of the womb independently without development of motor skills. Post birth this argument says it still has not developed natural rights.
This is referring specifically to surviving independently [of the womb], not surviving completely independently with no assistance from anyone whatsoever.
Viability simply means a capacity to survive outside of the womb, not that you have a fully functioning capacity to foraging for your own food, etc.
I do see how the wording was a bit confusing and non-specific there though. I went ahead and updated it. Thanks.
I am a Libertarian, and do not feel like this perspective is representative of me. The title would lead the reader to assume that this is the LP stance on the issue, since it is titled with a “L”, and not an “l”.
I am a pro-life Libertarian, and a mother. In most every situation, a woman makes a choice (having sex) that leads to the pregnancy, which does involve a human being in the gestational phase of life. In my opinion, it is rational to assume that she made the choice to (if even only potentially) get pregnant when she chose to have sex.
Hi Dana,
The title is written in title case. That is why “Libertarian” is capitalized there. In the first paragraph of the article I use a lowercase “l” when discussing libertarianism. I did not intend to speak for the Libertarian Party, however, as I understand it the Libertarian Party is pro-choice:
“Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”
When women make a choice to have sex, many are not making a conscious choice to become pregnant. Even while using birth control properly, there is still a substantial, non-trivial chance (around one to five percent) of an unwanted pregnancy occurring.
The argument that any time a women chooses to have sex she has gone ahead “made the choice to get pregnant” appears to be false, considering how many unintended and unwanted pregnancies we do see in the U.S.
I agree with you that she has risked getting pregnant, but do we want to force her to have a child that she didn’t want and never intended to create? Eighteen years seems like a long punishment for miscalculating the risk reward equation.
If she didn’t intend to create a child, why is she having sex? I guess that’s where opinions can differ. Especially on matters that invoke religions.
Well, people have sex for a variety of reasons that having nothing to do with intending to have children.
Aside from people who are using birth control, there are folks who are barren or otherwise unable to conceive, homosexuals, people who have sex just for the intimacy and companionship, everyone who masturbates, post-menopausal women, and so on.
Let’s face it, sex is fun. It’s a primal, mammalian urge that almost all of us share. In fact, it is such a universal, basic impulse that it can also become dark and scary, which is exactly what makes it such a great target for religious moral taboos.
I agree with you 100%. By having an abortion, you are taking away the rights and choices of another. You have already made the choice by having sex. Know the risks beforehand, and there really shouldn’t be a problem.
http://jibbli.com
That implies all women want to have sex. What about rape? Incest? Or even better incest with a minor who could not say no?
That also implies all abortions are done for birth control. The reality is that a significant percent of fertilized eggs never turn into viable babies. People dont tend to think about it because most of the losses are very early on. Sometimes the loss is later on, and you end up with a large fetus that through no fault of the woman dies. You’re going to force the grieving women to carry the dead fetus to term and go through the labor pains of delivering a corpse.
I disagree. The right to life is inalienable to all humans not just mothers, but children also. and a baby is not a “tenet” who rents space from the mother based on a contract, nor is the baby some kind of “squatter”..your analysis leaves out one very crucial element of this debate…that element presents a baby in uetero as much different than a parasite to be evicted, and that is that the baby is the result of the actions of the parents…it does not do anything to bring upon its own creation, nor does it find the mother as a “host” but rather it is created as the result of the actions of the mother and father.
the very fact that we refer to the woman as the ‘mother’ is evidence that we consider the life inside of her to be, not just a baby, but her child. i really believe, in the soul of everyone, the answer to this debate is self-evident….i think those that seek to keep abortion legal despite knowing that its ethically and morally wrong, do so for self-serving reasons.
Hi Kara,
There is no question that the actions of the parents created the fetus. That is a fact.
The question is, at what point does the fetus obtain natural rights? At conception? During the second trimester? When brain waves are first detected? When the heart starts beating?
Using the benchmark of viability is the most rational approach, in my opinion. If something cannot survive outside of the womb, I do not see how it can be considered alive. I’m not sure how it can be granted rights.
I understand your conviction that if everyone simply looked in their hearts they would know abortion is “morally and ethically wrong,” however many people have done soul searching on the topic and do not agree with your assessment.
Having a child is a huge commitment. A substantial number of people do not want to bring a child into the world unless they know they can care for it properly. They consider it just as morally and ethically wrong to have a child they are unprepared to care for as you would to have an abortion.
Dan,
This is exactly how I think about this issue. I have never been in favor of late term partial birth abortions where the doctor scrabbles the baby’s brain in order to prevent it from being “born” alive. I have never parsed my thinking on the subject this precisely.
Thanks,
Dana
Thanks Dana,
That was exactly the aim, to bring some clarity to a confusing and sometimes emotional issue for people.
Thanks for stopping by!
Evicting a viable fetus from the womb can result in serious difficulties post-birth and later in life. It seems eviction could be tantamount to abuse.
What happens if you evict a fetus and it subsequently dies? Is it determined after the fact to be non-viable?
One possible answer would be to hold off the eviction of any viable fetus past a certain date to ensure survival.
Essentially, abortion would be fully legal before the benchmark of viability is passed, which is currently around twenty-four week mark, at which point the fetus would acquire natural rights and full personhood.
An eviction could then not take place until later. After the thirty-fourth week is when the survival rate becomes nearly identical to that of a full-term birth.
What if the “eviction” is accidental, as in the woman miscarries? Is she now responsible for manslaughter, since her body forced the fetus to leave before it could survive on its own?
Do women who drink or smoke when pregnant ever go to jail for child abuse? Why not?
So you are saying the moment the iron uterus is invented that no aborted fetus will die?
Hi Arvid,
Well, I doubt that the uterus be made of iron, but yes, if we had a false womb and a failsafe extraction method I suspect that many women (and legislators) would accept that procedure as an alternative to standard abortion practices.
Roe versus Wade was decided solely on privacy issues; the decision had nothing to do with the natural rights of the fetus. If a medical procedure was created that alleviated the mother’s role in the birthing process, her rights would no longer be violated by unwanted pregnancy, and individual natural rights could be granted at a much earlier time.
Incredibly flawed and ill-conceived argument. Philosophically, one cannot state that a human has the right to exist as of 7:30pm, but did not have them at 7:29:59.
Hi Krowbar,
There are always legal “lines in the sand” drawn when it comes to obtaining rights.
We become adults overnight when we turn eighteen. We gain the privilege to terrorize others on the road when we turn sixteen, we can drink alcohol at twenty-one, and so on.
Natural rights are currently granted in an instant as well, the instant you are born. Most people recognize this is erroneous though; how does moving through a thin wall of flesh suddenly make someone a person? Not only is it only a spacial change, it is one that can occur at a variety of ages.
Viability, meaning a non-dependence on one’s biological mother, is a much stronger benchmark for obtaining natural rights.
Hi Dan!
I wanted to jump in at this point (I admit to not having read your post yet – I’m moving quick this morning, lots going on here). I’ve done a bit of teaching in philosophy, particularly in ethics, and this is one of the topics I engaged often.
I’ve always found the “at birth” argument for obtaining natural rights to be weak, particularly with the standard of “non-dependence” on the mother. In my 34 years, I have yet to meet an infant, even one carried to full term, that is not dependent upon other human beings for survival – they cannot clothe, feed, or shelter themselves. Left completely alone, even perfectly healthy infants will sicken and die.
Some respond that providing care to an infant is a voluntary act, which I can certainly agree with. The distinction often cited then is that the difference between caring for an infant and carrying a fetus is that the carrying of a fetus is essentially not voluntary (speaking of the pregnancy in and of itself, not the decision to carry or abort) and thus negates any rights or claims the fetus might have to its continued existence. I’ve heard many liken it to a trespassing scenario, to which I’ve asked when it is permissible to apply the death penalty in a case of unwillful trespass.
To step back from the specifics of this argument and to apply a broader scope to the basic claim: if natural rights are contingent upon being non-dependent, are natural rights lost any time one becomes somehow dependent? For example, people in persistent vegetative states – is it permissible to kill them, regardless of whether or not they are in private possession of resources that can sustain their biological functioning?
A final point before I have to run off and get my breakfast on the stove – a human being, at any stage of development, has the potential of a future existence. Generally humans value having a future life, even though we are incapable of knowing what exactly it holds. Our objection to the crime of murder basically hinges on this, that the victim is denied their future life through the subjective judgment of some other human being. Baring natural occurrences that would lead to a miscarriage, a fertilized human egg will, if left alone, develop into a human being, and from the moment of fertilization it has such a future life. It would seem then that our objection to murder ought to also apply to these underdeveloped humans, and that any objections to this rely only on citations of physical differences between them and us, similar to how some people justify different, and sometimes brutal, treatment of people whose race differs from their own.
So there’s my two cents. And now, bacon time!
Hey Paul,
I’m not advocating the “at birth” argument for obtaining natural rights. In my opinion, granting natural rights when fetal viability is reached is a much clearer, less arbitrary benchmark.
People in persistent vegetative states have already obtained their natural rights. Natural rights are never revoked once they are granted, as far as I know.
You stated, “Baring natural occurrences that would lead to a miscarriage, a fertilized human egg will, if left alone, develop into a human being, and from the moment of fertilization it has such a future life.” This will only happen with the good will, support and consent of the mother. Without her, a fertilized human egg will not develop at all.
Abortion exists because the mother does not want a human being to grow inside of her. And she has every right to determine what does and doesn’t grow inside of her.
The question is, at what point does her right to terminate gestation interfere with the natural rights of fetus? Using the benchmark of viability is the most rational approach, in my opinion.
Dan,
I’m curious as to how you are defining “natural rights.” Traditionally, that implies rights that are inherent to persons, but your framing of it implies that they can be revoked by subjective whim. Can you elaborate?
Your response about the development of a human embryo being dependent on “the good will, support and consent of the mother” is factually incorrect. This is a biological process that occurs without a conscious thought – it can happen normally in the womb of a comatose woman, for example. The question here is not “does a human embryo require a womb to develop,” that part is obvious (for now, I suppose), but “can a woman freely kill what is a person simply because it has not reached X stage of development?”
You write:
“Abortion exists because the mother does not want a human being to grow inside of her. And she has every right to determine what does and doesn’t grow inside of her.”
It seems then that you acknowledge that what is being discussed here are human beings. And yes, it makes sense to say that someone has the right to determine what should and should not grow inside of them. When discussing developing children in the womb, however, isn’t this a bit like reducing them in status to that of tumors? It’s one thing to talk of removing a cyst in this way, but quite another when we’re talking about killing a human being. As I mentioned previously, I like to ask people if it is morally permissible to kill someone for their having unwittingly trespassed. It would be more accurate in this case perhaps to include that the trespasser is also blindfolded, gagged, hogtied, and was dumped on your property by some third party. Is the death penalty a reasonable thing to inflict on such an individual?
“I’m curious as to how you are defining ‘natural rights.’ Traditionally, that implies rights that are inherent to persons, but your framing of it implies that they can be revoked by subjective whim.”
I’m saying natural rights logically begin at viability rather than at birth. After natural rights are granted, they are never revoked, as far as I know. So I’m not sure what subjective whim you are referring to.
We have to, as a society, legally grant personhood and natural rights to infants at some age. Currently, they are not granted until birth. Right now, legally speaking, one minute before birth a fetus is not a human being. Then as soon as birth occurs the fetus is granted legal personhood.
But waiting until birth to grant natural rights is problematic. According to that logic, a viable baby could be aborted one minutes before he or she was to be delivered without any ethical qualms.
Almost everyone agrees that very late term and partial birth abortions are not ethical. Which is why they were made illegal in the U.S., and why they remain illegal with very little protest.
But that begs the question, “why should partial birth abortions be illegal if a baby is not really a person until the moment of his or her birth?” And the answer is, even though natural rights are not legally granted until birth, most people understand that viable babies do have rights.
“When discussing developing children in the womb, however, isn’t this a bit like reducing them in status to that of tumors? It’s one thing to talk of removing a cyst in this way, but quite another when we’re talking about killing a human being.”
Yes, if legal personhood has not been granted, an abortion is exactly like removing a cyst or tumor. That’s why granting legal personhood at an appropriate time is so important.
Dan,
The subjective whim I am referring to in regard to natural rights is your description of them as being “granted.” Unless I am not understanding you, it seems you are saying that that which is natural – inherent – is subject to human, or subjective, judgment. Are you stating this in terms of it being something we must deduce and in ways must guess at, or are you claiming that human beings do dictate what is a natural right and what is not? If the latter, it would seem to be a contradiction of the concept itself.
As an example, you write:
“We have to, as a society, legally grant personhood and natural rights to infants at some age. Currently, they are not granted until birth. Right now, legally speaking, one minute before birth a fetus is not a human being. Then as soon as birth occurs the fetus is granted legal personhood.”
Are we then talking about positive law here? This seems to be the case – we can, as human beings, create positive law that contradicts natural law. If we write down a law that says “a person is not a person until X date of development, regardless of future potential,” is that valid? Is it just? Isn’t it subject to whim?
You’re right, late term and partial birth abortions offend the sensibilities of many, and thus we’ve moved as a society to ban them without much opposition. But I wonder – is this because of any logical conclusions about the practice of abortion itself in terms of inherent rights, or because of a “yuck factor” in that the child, at that stage of development, looks more like you and I? I think there is a moral blind spot here – getting back to what I state in my first post – in that some draw an arbitrary moral line based on mere physical characteristics possessed by the human life in question rather than taking into account the future that being possesses, something we also possess and value for our own sakes that we would not want denied to us by the subjective decision of some other person.
I think the prime driver in libertarian thinking is accepting and dealing with the reality of humanity. Pregnancy is the course of life and cannot be debated with silly words like “renter” This is humanity at it’s core. Just as Mises showed us Economic law we should embrace what is truly human action and that is pregnancy, birth, and motherhood.
I’m sure that this is extremely controversial but I consider ‘heterosexual’ also truly human action. Consider it biologically, anatomically, sociologically, physiologically, a family is mother and father is loving unselfish union.
The prime driver in libertarian thinking is freedom, not submission. In particular, it’s the freedom to not have one’s rights infringed upon by the government, other religions, corporations, and by other people in general.
In the case of unwanted pregnancy, the mother’s rights are being infringed upon. She has something living inside her own body that she does not wish to be there. If she cannot take ownership over her own body, then what can she claim ownership of? Pregnancy is not a loving union when only one of the two parties wants to be involved.
If you are going to discuss how to “deal with the reality of humanity,” then you have to be willing to drop the idealistic moral vantage point you are taking and actually address what the specific realities of humanity are. Unwanted pregnancies are a fact, as are non-traditional family units.
Defining a family as only a “mother and father in loving unselfish union” is extremely limiting, to the extent that it is almost the opposite of a libertarian perspective, steering into theocratic territory. Libertarianism doesn’t mean traditionalism.
The same limiting, smug, and moralistic perspective is what gives government dominion over a woman’s body in countries where abortion is illegal, it’s what what gives government public support to levy “sin taxes” upon the population, as well as to continue spending billions waging the “war on drugs,” and so on.
I totally agree with you Dan!
If you require a woman to carry a child regardless of her right, you are then saying she is nothing more right than a cow.
If you say she has a right to terminate a child after it reaches viability but not a full term baby, she is a lawful killer. There may be valid reasons to terminate a viable child.
In either case you are judging her without being in her shoes and without her facts, and that is shame on you, if you are a libertarian, IMO.
What are the ‘valid reasons’ for terminating a viable child?
Wow, quite an interesting read. I can’t say one way or the other, but man does it really iget ya thinking!