Libertarian perspectives on abortion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abortion is a uniquely controversial issue, particularly in American politics. Among libertarians, this debate consists of multiple questions, including:
- whether abortion should be illegal
- if so, at what level of government this should be enforced
- whether or not the government should fund abortions
The vast majority of libertarians are agreed on the latter question, believing that government should not fund personal activity, especially activity of such a controversial nature. However, as to whether abortion should be legal, they are split as equally as the mainstream[1] Many libertarians believe that a woman's ownership of her own body, and therefore her right to control it, includes her right to terminate her pregnancy without any interference. Others believe the fetus has a human right to life, and that an abortion is the initiation of fatal force against a helpless victim.
Contents |
[edit] Pro-choice positions
Though not accepted by all libertatians, Objectivist philosophy has had considerable influence on libertarian thought. One website run by the Objectivist-influenced Capitalism Magazine is an example of 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.[2]
[edit] Pro-life positions
Libertarians For Life 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.[3]
[edit] U.S. Libertarian Party position
The U.S. Libertarian Party platform[4] states that "abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides". It holds that abortion should be legal but neither state-funded or required because "the government should be kept out of the question".
Rather than pre-judging the solution in specific cases as abortion law does, the Libertarian Party says the real solution is for citizens to look to the voluntary and subsidiary institutions – person, family, religion – actually competent in the matter[5] noting 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.
In this, its position is quite similar to that of another institution claiming the support of natural law: the Roman Catholic Church, which allows abortions for medical reasons and sanctions misdeeds only through excommunication. According to libertarian critics, the church errs in attempting to enlist the government in creating punishments not just for Catholics but for everyone, subverting its own doctrine of subsidiarity – that problems should be solved by the institutions closest to those involved.[6]
Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party candidate for President for 1996 and 2000, stated his opposition to Roe v. Wade and believed that abortion is wrong, but that there is no federal authority to deal with it.
[edit] Other views
A number of libertarians split from conventional positions. For example, some do not doubt the authority or morality of government passing laws against abortion, but claim that such laws would be futile in stopping abortion, as drug laws are allegedly futile in stopping drug use. Others fear that an abortion ban would start a "War on Abortion," parallel to the "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror," which many libertarians view as major threats to individual liberty.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ Libertarian Party, Libertarian Party News, July 1998
- ^ http://www.abortionisprolife.com/faq.htm
- ^ http://www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html
- ^ National Platform of the Libertarian Party, section "Women's Rights and Abortion"
- ^ Platform of the New Jersey Libertarian Party, section "Family Life
- ^ ABORTION, Catholic Encyclopedia
[edit] External links
- Libertarians for Choice Pro-choice libertarian perspective
- Libertarians for Life Pro-life libertarian perspective
- Women's Rights and Abortion National Platform of the Libertarian Party Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta Georgia
- Are There 'Pro-Life' Libertarians?, a question answered by Dr. Mary Ruwart
