Abortion: The Libertarian Divide

The startling thing about abortion is the dichotomy it creates among libertarians.

One of the most controversial topics in modern politics is the legalization of abortion. Many different subtopics affect the outcome of one’s opinion. What makes abortion so unusual is that it has the ability to divide libertarians, usually a unified and simple group of people.

Throughout history, there have always been two major sides to every argument: liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, pro-gun rights and pro-gun control, etc. The same is partially true with abortion: pro-life and pro-choice. However, the difference lies in the taboo of the situation, and the fact that there is more variety in opinion. While some believe abortion should be illegal in all cases, others believe it should be illegal except for in cases of rape or incest; others believe it should be illegal except for in protection of maternal life, and so on. These exceptions are what makes this topic so relevant to libertarians, and one in particular; whether the fetus’s life is taken into account or not. The basis of libertarianism is to protect the rights of the people, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pro-life argument, generally, is that the fetus is a life, and therefore, it should be protected. The pro-choice argument, generally, is that the mother should not be forced to give birth if she does not want to, and that the fetus is not a valid life. So, therefore, the entire conflict boils down to when — if ever — the fetus is considered a life to be protected.

Abortion is one of the few topics libertarians scarcely agree on.

Much of the argument for protection of the fetus’s life can be rooted in the Declaration of Independence, as it cites John Locke’s famous (and previously referenced) reasons for government: life, liberty, and estate (later changed to pursuit of happiness). The Declaration reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Supporters of protecting unborn life reference these lines and claim that under the most basic of guaranteed rights, this child should still have the right to live. Those who support a woman’s choice, in rebuttal, claim that as the unborn child is still dependent on the mother, the right to take the life of the baby lies with her. So it comes to one last question. Which is more worthy: a woman’s right to an abortion, or a baby’s right to live?

The purpose of this piece is not to persuade you. It is not to get you to come to one side or the other. This piece is simply an assessment of modern libertarianism, a test of priority, and the reasoning behind said priority. An answer must be provided for the platform of libertarianism: is unborn life protected by government?

The pro-choice answer to this question is no. Why? Bodily autonomy. This is the right that protects you from unwillingly giving blood, organs, etc., but it is also used as an argument to justify abortion. However, I must ask whoever uses this argument: how can the child ask for permission to use the mother’s life sustenance? They cannot. It would be absolutely unreasonable to kill an unborn baby because they didn’t ask permission to use your resources to grow. In fact, you could even argue that you gave permission the moment the child was conceived. Second of all, some pro-choice activists argue that restriction from abortion is a restriction of their human rights, as well. Again, I must rebut: are you violating the human rights of the child you conceived? I might be biased, as personally, I am pro-life, but the fact of the matter is elementary. From a humanitarian point of view, abortion is murder. Plain and not-so-simple.

Planned Parenthood, one of the country’s largest abortion mills, performs about 160 abortions for every adoption referral.

Now, we get into the sticky situations: rape and maternal life. Let’s talk about rape first. Our justice system takes the form of the Code of Hammurabi: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. However, usually, if someone pokes your eye out, the eye being taken in vengeance is from the person who poked your eye out, not the first person you see on the street. Similarly, if someone rapes you and gets you pregnant without your consent, the just thing to do would be to punish the rapist with imprisonment, death, what have you, not the innocent child conceived in the process. I’m not saying the mother should be forced to raise the child; adoption is a wonderful thing. In the words of Ben Shapiro:

Just because someone did something terrible to you, it doesn’t give you the right to do something terrible to someone else.

Abortion in protection of maternal life (as in, giving birth would literally kill the mother) is the only kind of abortion I can even slightly endorse, due to the fact that it protects the mother’s life, a right guaranteed to every citizen. In other situations, giving birth still leaves the mother’s rights intact (life, liberty, etc.) but in this case, her rights are not being secured, and, reluctantly, the child’s life is a threat to someone else’s. It does pose another question, though: whose life has more value? Exclusively to this case, I believe the mother’s life takes priority, due to the fact that she would be consciously ending her life, a life that she was told and she understood she had a right to live. I know I’m getting a little empathetic, but that’s just my personal belief system. Nevertheless, the moral of the story is that life should be protected in all situations, but not at all costs.