I promised in a previous post that I would address the issue of the abortion. It's a tough issue for libertarians to deal with, and it is one that takes more than just libertarian theory to justify an opinion on. It turns out that somewhere between 30% and 40% of libertarians identify as pro-life, and somewhere between 60% and 70% of libertarians identify as pro-choice. Here's what I think about it.
Where I Stand
I consider myself very pro-life but I also support an exception for rape and in the situation where the life of the mother is in danger. This is my reasoning:
Imagine I invite you to come up with me in my airplane. We reach 40,000 feet and we get in an argument. I tell you to leave my plane. You would, of course, protest: "You can't force me out of the airplane here! It's not safe! You brought me up here, into this dangerous situation, you have the obligation to do your best to bring me to safety!" I think your outrage would be justified, and I believe the same analysis is applicable to abortion. There is an obligation on the part of the mother and father (at least as far as he is able, without violating the rights of the mother), to do their best to bring the baby into the safe situation of birth. It was by their voluntary actions that the baby is in a dangerous situation and therefore there is an implicit contract committing them to work, as much as they are reasonably able, towards a safe birth.
However, a situation where the mother's life is in danger presents a problem. Someone must decide what the best course of action is based on the risk and potential consequences. Since the baby is not capable of making that assessment, the mother (hopefully with input from the father) is the only other logical choice. Sometimes life presents us with two bad choices and all we can do is try to decide on the one which is least bad.
In the case where the mother was raped she was not voluntarily involved in the act that produced the baby and therefore I don't think she should be forced to live with the consequences. I would personally have great respect for a woman who chose to carry her rapists baby, but I do not believe the state should force her to. However, if she did choose to abort I believe the rapist should be charged with manslaughter as well as rape.
The other exception that is widely accepted is in cases of incest. I do not understand the argument for making an exception in these circumstances. It seems to me like that exception was only made to protect a few members of the elite from embarrassment. But if someone has a good case to make, based on personal property rights, I'm open to it. I just don't see it right now.*
Pro-Choice Libertarians
When does a a fetus acquire rights? Some rights in our society, like the right to buy certain products, are reserved until the fetus has been born and reached age 18 or 21. Some rights, such as the right to property and the right to free speech, are acquired much earlier. How about the right to one's own body? There is no objective way, that I can see, of determining the point at which a fetus acquires that right. It's all a huge grey area. Personally, my conscience tells me that we should err on the side of not potentially killing millions of small, defenseless human beings. But I have to acknowledge that if you are thoroughly convinced that a fetus is just a part of the pregnant woman, and has no rights of its own (much like your liver has no rights of its own), then libertarian theory says you should be pro-choice. I respect the opinion of people who take a principled pro-choice position based on that, even though I disagree with them.
But there are also really bad reasons to be a pro-choice libertarian.
Some libertarians, like Jeff Miron in his otherwise excellent book "Libertarianism A to Z," make a utilitarian argument, saying that even if you think the fetus is a person, we might as well have legal abortions because abortions will happen anyway and they'll be more safe when they're legal. It's basically the same as one of the many arguments you'll hear libertarians make against the war on drugs, just with a little different spin on it. I think that is a hideous and ghastly way of thinking. Based on that reasoning you could also say that rape should be legal so that it could be performed in a doctors office, where it's set up to be safe and not transfer any STDs or get anyone an unwanted pregnancy. It might be safer for the rapist, but it's still a violent invasion of the rights of the victim, and that's why it's illegal. That's the point of government, in the mind of a libertarian: To protect individual rights. In the case of legal abortion, it may be safer for the mother, but it's clearly a violent invasion of the rights of the child. He's being killed!
There's also the argument that we need to keep population in check to save the environment, conserve resources, and save tax dollars. You usually find arguments like this on the economically illiterate left, but occasionally you'll run across it in libertarian circles as well. I don't buy it one bit. I would argue that the world benefits much more from more children than it is harmed. The biggest scarcity that exists in the world is ideas. More people mean more ideas and more prosperity. And kids don't just consume stuff. They'll eventually grow up and produce things, and they'll even pay taxes to cover the government services they use. Every dollar they eventually earn in a market economy means that they provided someone with something that they valued more than their dollar.
Ultimately, a society that sacrifices the future generation for good times in the present (whether that is through inflation, the national debt, or mass abortions) cannot be a growing and thriving society. Whether or not you're pro-life, I think we should all realize that abortion is nothing to be celebrated.
*You could say, "Most cases of incest are rape." That's fine, but incest is not necessarily rape. If there is a rapist, he should be charged and not let off the hook just to avoid family embarrassment. This is a human life we're talking about, after all! And if it is consensual then there is no logical reason I can see for an exception.
Where I Stand
I consider myself very pro-life but I also support an exception for rape and in the situation where the life of the mother is in danger. This is my reasoning:
Imagine I invite you to come up with me in my airplane. We reach 40,000 feet and we get in an argument. I tell you to leave my plane. You would, of course, protest: "You can't force me out of the airplane here! It's not safe! You brought me up here, into this dangerous situation, you have the obligation to do your best to bring me to safety!" I think your outrage would be justified, and I believe the same analysis is applicable to abortion. There is an obligation on the part of the mother and father (at least as far as he is able, without violating the rights of the mother), to do their best to bring the baby into the safe situation of birth. It was by their voluntary actions that the baby is in a dangerous situation and therefore there is an implicit contract committing them to work, as much as they are reasonably able, towards a safe birth.
However, a situation where the mother's life is in danger presents a problem. Someone must decide what the best course of action is based on the risk and potential consequences. Since the baby is not capable of making that assessment, the mother (hopefully with input from the father) is the only other logical choice. Sometimes life presents us with two bad choices and all we can do is try to decide on the one which is least bad.
In the case where the mother was raped she was not voluntarily involved in the act that produced the baby and therefore I don't think she should be forced to live with the consequences. I would personally have great respect for a woman who chose to carry her rapists baby, but I do not believe the state should force her to. However, if she did choose to abort I believe the rapist should be charged with manslaughter as well as rape.
The other exception that is widely accepted is in cases of incest. I do not understand the argument for making an exception in these circumstances. It seems to me like that exception was only made to protect a few members of the elite from embarrassment. But if someone has a good case to make, based on personal property rights, I'm open to it. I just don't see it right now.*
Pro-Choice Libertarians
When does a a fetus acquire rights? Some rights in our society, like the right to buy certain products, are reserved until the fetus has been born and reached age 18 or 21. Some rights, such as the right to property and the right to free speech, are acquired much earlier. How about the right to one's own body? There is no objective way, that I can see, of determining the point at which a fetus acquires that right. It's all a huge grey area. Personally, my conscience tells me that we should err on the side of not potentially killing millions of small, defenseless human beings. But I have to acknowledge that if you are thoroughly convinced that a fetus is just a part of the pregnant woman, and has no rights of its own (much like your liver has no rights of its own), then libertarian theory says you should be pro-choice. I respect the opinion of people who take a principled pro-choice position based on that, even though I disagree with them.
But there are also really bad reasons to be a pro-choice libertarian.
Some libertarians, like Jeff Miron in his otherwise excellent book "Libertarianism A to Z," make a utilitarian argument, saying that even if you think the fetus is a person, we might as well have legal abortions because abortions will happen anyway and they'll be more safe when they're legal. It's basically the same as one of the many arguments you'll hear libertarians make against the war on drugs, just with a little different spin on it. I think that is a hideous and ghastly way of thinking. Based on that reasoning you could also say that rape should be legal so that it could be performed in a doctors office, where it's set up to be safe and not transfer any STDs or get anyone an unwanted pregnancy. It might be safer for the rapist, but it's still a violent invasion of the rights of the victim, and that's why it's illegal. That's the point of government, in the mind of a libertarian: To protect individual rights. In the case of legal abortion, it may be safer for the mother, but it's clearly a violent invasion of the rights of the child. He's being killed!
There's also the argument that we need to keep population in check to save the environment, conserve resources, and save tax dollars. You usually find arguments like this on the economically illiterate left, but occasionally you'll run across it in libertarian circles as well. I don't buy it one bit. I would argue that the world benefits much more from more children than it is harmed. The biggest scarcity that exists in the world is ideas. More people mean more ideas and more prosperity. And kids don't just consume stuff. They'll eventually grow up and produce things, and they'll even pay taxes to cover the government services they use. Every dollar they eventually earn in a market economy means that they provided someone with something that they valued more than their dollar.
Ultimately, a society that sacrifices the future generation for good times in the present (whether that is through inflation, the national debt, or mass abortions) cannot be a growing and thriving society. Whether or not you're pro-life, I think we should all realize that abortion is nothing to be celebrated.
*You could say, "Most cases of incest are rape." That's fine, but incest is not necessarily rape. If there is a rapist, he should be charged and not let off the hook just to avoid family embarrassment. This is a human life we're talking about, after all! And if it is consensual then there is no logical reason I can see for an exception.
No comments:
Post a Comment