By: Claire, THL Contributor
It is a common misconception that if you’re a Libertarian, you are also pro-choice. Granted, many are. However, that isn’t the way it has to be. In fact, I want to tell you why I believe being pro-life is an obvious Libertarian stance.
As Libertarians, we believe in not infringing on the rights of others, whether they are economic or personal rights. We believe in John Locke’s, and then Thomas Jefferson’s adaptation of Locke’s theory in the Declaration of Independence - all humans are entitled to the certain unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.The first of these is Life – for all humans.
I believe that a child is a human at the moment of conception, not just at the moment of birth. This is my scientifically based opinion. A child’s DNA is determined at conception, making them the unique person that they are. Isn’t the basic human right of life then guaranteed to this person? Even before they exit the womb?
A child has an adult’s basic rights, even if it has not yet been born. Libertarians would never want to infringe on someone’s right to life, and so I believe that a good libertarian should fight for the inalienable rights of all people, including unborn children.
There are some Libertarian groups out there presenting this view to both sides of the argument, and I think the Libertarians for Life is one the most outstanding groups excelling in this area.
Check out their site for more information on being a pro-life Libertarian.
Editor's note: Please welcome Claire to the blog. This is her debut post. She is a colleague and schoolmate of mine whose writing I noticed in the campus libertarian/conservative newspaper. There's more on the abortion issue and libertarianism to come! -W. E. Messamore
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Why Pro-Life is actually a Libertarian Point of View
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sponsored Post
Why invest in precious metals?
Over the last 5 years, the US dollar has lost nearly 50% of its value relative to the other major currencies, as the value of the U.S. Dollar declined, gold and silver prices have increased.
Posted by W. E. Messamore Comments (0)
13 comments:
The two opposing libertarian arguments on this painful subject reflect my own ambivalence on the matter.
Claire advances a powerful argument for her position and does it with eloquence. She will be a welcome addition to this site.
As for me, my libertarian position on the issue is to leave this most personal decision to the woman who must make the frequently agonizing choice to undergo an elective abortion.
The state should limit its role to ensuring the facilities providing this procedure are safe and available.
As a libertarian, I am pro-choice.
This is a subjective issue, relying on one's personal definition of "life" and derivation of rights.
You could argue that human life starts with the zygote(sperm & egg), but we must remember:
- for most of a pregnancy, the 'life' is no more complex than a fetal pig/dog/etc.
- the 'life' could not survive on it's own. It is completely reliant on the mother's body. So, we are infringing on the mother's body & rights with pro-life policy.
I think people's philosophy on this probably comes from their spirituality. Those who believe in a human soul, are likely to believe each 'potential' for life is sacred. Those of us who are more empiricist believe the child becomes it's own life once it can survive outside the mother's body.
I'm actually glad Claire brought up this issue for her first post. With a Supreme Court nomination in the works and the recent shooting of an abortionist doctor, the abortion issue is moving to the front of the conversation.
It certainly shouldn't be taken for granted that just because someone is a libertarian that they are therefore, pro-choice- and as Claire correctly points out, your opinion on the matter should hinge on your view of what a fetus is and whether or not it's a human being.
@Kenneth It is a hard issue, and (as someone who is pro-life myself) I hate to see how little love or sympathy many pro-lifers tend to show women who are in a position to consider getting an abortion.
@Steve As I said above, this is the issue that it hinges on, so it is good to see your comments focus on the ontological status of "the preborn."
I will quibble (& I think you would agree...) that the matter is not subjective in the sense that it regards the ontological status of a biological entity, which objectively either does or does not fall into the category "human being."
We may disagree over whether it does, but we are disagreeing over a matter of objective truth- a thing's nature and definition. I believe conception creates a human being (not for any spiritual reasons), and look forward to exploring why in an upcoming post.
I recently posted on my blog the constitutional position on abortion (which is pro-life) using the text of the document. For anyone interested in it or my blog it is at http://indefenseoftheconstitution.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-abortion-is-unconstitutional.html
First of all, Thank you Kenneth for your confidence and support, I really appreciate it.
Secondly, Steve,
As I have stated earlier, being a libertarian and pro-choice are not mutually inclusive. However, you do bring up an excellent point. It does matter what one's definition of "life" is. But even after a child is born and outside of the mother's body, it is still dependent on her and would die without her support.
It is essential to show women in this tough situation some empathy as Wes pointed out, but it is also important to take into account the future life we would be stealing.
What then is the appropriate punishment and/or restitution to be extracted from those (mother, doctor, clinic owner, etc.) that participate in an abortion?
Claire: "it is still dependent on her and would die without her support" is faulty reasoning (considering mothers that put up their babies for adoption no longer support them).
As a biologist whose field of research played a significant role in his adoption of the pro-life position, I would like to respond to Steve's bullet points.
In regards to your first bullet point-so what? I don't understand what the complexity of the fetus has to do with anything, so if you could elaborate a bit it would be much appreciated.
As to the second point, you seem to be forgetting that we don't live in a static world. Medical technology is advancing at a tremendous pace, many of the premie babies that are currently living fulfilling lives today would have been SOL corpses a hundred years ago. The age at which a fetus can survive out the womb continues to diminish, I read recently about a baby being born (and surviving) that was something like 5 months premature, a feat that would have been considered impossible decades ago. Given that a couple years ago a researcher grew an artificial bladder, which is the first step in a line of research which may someday lead to the production of artificially grown organs, possibly including artificial uteruses, where do we draw the line? If at some point in the future we have the capacity to grow a zygote to maturity without a woman's uterus ever being involved, what will the consequences to the frequently used "parasite" pro-choice argument be? This might sound sci-fi ish, but people have said that about many technologies we currently enjoy, and I think it is a useful thought experiment to explore the weakness of the argument that we should be able to take a life for any reason, provided it is reliant on a "mother's" body/tissues.
Finally, as has already been stated, one need not be spiritually inclined to adopt a pro-life stance, and your claims of empiricism sound a lot like an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy.
Anonymous, perhaps Claire did not make this clear enough(although I think she did), I believe she was referring to the fact that in the absence of care from adult humans, an infant will almost certainly die(I added the qualifier because I recognize that a girl just entering puberty is not yet an adult but may be capable of caring for the infant that she is now capable of becoming pregnant with, although I tend to think that most 12 year old mothers rely rather heavily on adult support themselves).
For myself, I think the time to exercise our American liberty to choose comes before we create a new person, not after, but this line of reasoning tends to conflict with the culture of mindless hedonism that is so in vogue these days.
@"Most recent anonymous" - "I think the time to exercise our American liberty to choose comes before we create a new person, not after."
Very well said!
A human embryo might be genetically human but it is not a 'person'. It has no nervous system, thus, it experiences no conscious sensation. It absurd that we live in a society that treats conscious, feeling cows, chickens and pigs as though they were inanimate objects yet people are up in arms about evicting cells from a woman's body.
Secondly, even if the embryo was sentient, a woman would still have the right to evict it from her body, just like I have the right not to donate my kidney to save my uncle's life, maybe I should, but I have the right not to. You are not responsible for anyone else, you have a right to full control over all decisions regarding your body. Thus, the consistent libertarian position is pro-choice. The problem is, so many people assume that 'pro-choice' means 'pro-abortion', it's entirely possible to be both pro-choice and pro-life.
I don't know that I buy the concept of "personhood" as such and the philosophical package that comes with it.
The question of whether a thing is a "person" seems a waste of time to me. If it's a human being, then we should afford it the legal protections all human beings deserve.
You are correct that a woman should have a choice about nourishing another life at some cost to herself- a choice that she has before, not after conceiving.
Your not a Libertarian if your proLife. Your just another conservative religious nut that doesn't like the current Republicans economic policies.
Well let me ask you this- am I just another conservative religious nut because I want to end the wars in the Middle East and bring the troops home? Or because I want to significantly reduce the defense budget? Or because I want the government to stop funding faith-based initiatives? Or because I believe homosexuals are discriminated against by our state's unwarranted intervention into the marriage issue (and that this should end)? Or because I want to legalize the recreational use of drugs? Or because I want to legalize any and all sexual acts between consenting adults, including prostitution? Or because I detest the Patriot Act, torture, warrant-less wiretapping, indefinite detainment without charges, the Bush Administration, and Sarah Palin? Or because I want to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and liberalize our immigration and trade policies? Or because I do not believe in a long-term strategic military alliance with the nation state of Israel (and think that the theological basis some Christians have for such a policy is the very worst possible reason they could give for it)? Or that I sympathize with the plight of Arabs who have suffered because of our foreign policy of supporting and arming their dictators? Am I just another conservative religious nut because of all this? Please give me half a chance and listen to and try to understand what I have to say before pronouncing judgments about me. You may find we have more in common than you think.
I am pro-life, but not anti- pro-choice. I don't know when life really begins, but as a parent, I was a parent the day my wife was pregnant. Being first time parents at an older age, we made the decision to test amnio and do other genetic tests and made the decision to terminate should something very negative had shown up.
this was an extremely difficult decision, but one that was going to be best for us. I also know how difficult the pro-choice decision really is for women. Pro-choice is not a decision, IMHO, that should be taken lightly. And there should be consideration that the decision to terminate a pregnancy can be very harmful to the emotional health of the mother and father.
So as a libertarian, I am all about total freedom, but also a realist. On this issue, life is most precious, but sometimes...
Post a Comment