Libertarian perspectives on abortion

Libertarians promote individual liberty and seek to minimize the role of the state. Nevertheless there is some debate over whether abortion is homicide at some point during pregnancy and therefore should be outlawed. According to Dr. Mary Ruwart there is a split among libertarians, but the "pro-choice" (keep government out of the abortion issue) viewpoint is predominant, as expressed in the Libertarian Party platform. [ [http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?Category=1&id=288 "Ask Dr. Ruwart"] , Advocates for Self-Government.]

Pro-choice positions

In "The Right to Abortion: A Libertarian Defense," the [http://www.alf.org Association of Libertarian Feminists] has a created 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." [Sharon Presley and Robert Cooke, [http://www.alf.org/papers/abortion.shtml "The Right to Abortion: A Libertarian Defense] , [http://www.alf.org Association of Libertarian Feminists web site] , 2003.]

The website run by the Objectivist-influenced Capitalism Magazine supports the pro-choice position:

:"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." [ [http://www.abortionisprolife.com/faq.htm Abortion is Pro Life ] ]

The [http://pro-choicelibertarians.net Pro-Choice Libertarians] group lists the following reasons they oppose government involvement in the abortion issue: "The fetus is not a human being with rights until it is born (based on a number of rationales) and/or only the mother confers rights on the fetus; even if the fetus has rights, and abortion is murder, the rights of the mother to evict trespassersndash for whatever reasonsndash through abortion are greater (based on a number of rationales); the government is the problem, not the solution, including in this issue; it's my body and the government should keep its laws off it; people can decide this issue in their private, contractual communities; only voluntary means of convincing a woman to have a child are libertarian; the decision on whether it is murder is based on political power and adult women have more power; it is wrong to force a deformed baby or unwanted child to come into the world." [ [http://pro-choicelibertarians.net List of Just Some of the Reasons Libertarians Want Government out of the Abortion Issue] , at [http://pro-choicelibertarians.net Pro-ChoiceLibertarians.net] .]

U.S. Libertarian Party position

The U.S. Libertarian Party political platform (2008) [ [http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml "National Platform of the Libertarian Party"] , section "Abortion"] states: that "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.".

Rather than pre-judging the solution in specific cases as abortion law does, groups like the Libertarian Party of New Jersey hold the real solution is for citizens to look to the voluntary and subsidiary institutions – person, family, religion – actually competent in the matter. It notes that people are often hindered from sensible acts by government policies with effects such as encouraging abortions, making adoptions difficult, hindering contraception, or turning child support into a lucrative racket. [ [http://njlp.org/content/view/13/32/#FamilyLife "2007 Platform of the New Jersey Libertarian Party"] , section "Family Life."]

Pro-life positions

Libertarians For Life argues that zygotes and fetuses should have the same rights as children. The organization notes that the principles of both the United States Libertarian Party and Objectivist ethics require some obligation to children and counter with an appeal to the non-aggression principle:

:"Non-aggression is an ongoing obligation: it is never optional for anyone, even pregnant women. If the non-aggression obligation did not apply, then earning money versus stealing it and consensual sex versus rape would be morally indifferent behaviors. The obligation not to aggress is pre-political and pre-legal. It does not arise out of contract, agreement, or the law; rather, such devices presuppose this obligation. The obligation would exist even in a state of nature. This is because the obligation comes with our human nature, and we acquire this nature at conception." [cite web |url=http://www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html |title=Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly |author=Doris Gordon |date=1995, 1999 |publisher=Libertarians for Life]

Other Positions

Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party candidate for President for 1996 and 2000, rejected the terms pro-life and pro-choice and stated about abortion: "Whatever we believe abortion is, we know one thing: government doesn't work, and it is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs." [Harry Browne, [http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/Abortion.htm The Libertarian stand on abortion] , [http://harrybrowne.org Harry Browne personal web page] ] , December 21, 1998.]

Dr. Walter Block, economist at Loyola University, offers an alternative to the standard choice between "pro-life" and "pro-choice": what he terms "evictionism." According to this moral theory, the act of abortion must be conceptually separated into the acts of (a) eviction of the fetus from the womb; and (b) killing the fetus. Building on the libertarian stand against trespass and murder, Block maintains the legitimacy of the first act, but, in certain circumstances, not of the second act. When the following conditions are met, the woman may legally abort: (a) the fetus is not viable outside the womb; or (b) the woman has announced to the world her abandonment of the right to custody of the fetus; and (c) no one else has "homesteaded" that right by offering to care for the fetus. [Walter Block, [http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf "Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy"] , [http://www.walterblock.com Walter Block personal web site.] ]

This is similar to Murray Rothbard's position 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. [cite book|title=For a New Liberty|pages=107-108|chapter=Personal Liberty|author=Rothbard, Murray|isbn=0-930073-02-9]

ee also

*Abortion
*Abortion debate
*Libertarianism
*Libertarians for Life
*Pro-life
*Pro-choice

References

External links

* [http://www.pro-choicelibertarians.net Pro-Choice Libertarians] Activist network that promotes pro-choice view within libertarian movement
* [http://www.l4l.org Libertarians for Life] Pro-life libertarian perspective
* [http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#womerigh Reproductive Rights] National Platform of the Libertarian Party Adopted in Convention, July 2006, Portland, Oregon
* [http://www.self-gov.org/ruwart/q0116.html Are There 'Pro-Life' Libertarians?] , a question answered by Dr. Mary Ruwart