The Worst Pro-Choice Argument
By Anthony Gregory • Friday April 6, 2012 10:59 AM PDT • 33 Comments
For many reasons, I strongly oppose state restrictions on abortion. I think women have a right to control their bodies, and the state cannot morally force them to give birth. The implications of allowing the state to mandate a woman to carry a baby to term, even if the baby inside her is regarded as a human being with the right to life, are horrifying. A pregnant woman would have no right to commit suicide, for example. Besides all this, there are many practical problems that would arise in allowing the government to have authority over this matter. I think there is much to learn from the Catholic principle of subsidiarity on this and many other issues. The state is not the proper earthly authority to deal with abortion.
Yet there is an argument for abortion that I find very bothersome, and that is the contention that the unborn baby is not a human being with rights. This often comes up in any discussion of the moral significance of abortion during different stages of pregnancy. Some radical pro-choicers will say any attempt to humanize the fetus, even up until birth, is a claim against the mother’s rights and a threat to the pro-choice project. (Of course, some pro-life absolutists also think that the ethical difference between aborting a one-week zygote and a six-month fetus is non-existent; I disagree.)
We are now seeing the full implications of this extremist pro-abortion view in the arguments being made on behalf of “after-birth abortion.” Some pro-choicers, who argue that abortion must be permitted exactly because the fetus carries no moral significance compared to the interests of the mother, have taken that premise to a logical conclusion, now explicitly arguing that a baby born has no rights that its mother is bound to respect, assuming the inconvenience and burden of caring for the baby are great enough to warrant killing the infant.
I find this argument abhorrent, as do many pro-lifers and some pro-choicers, yet it is a corollary of one particular argument made to defend abortion (and an argument, I would add, that is entirely unnecessary to oppose all state intervention in abortion).
Another whole bundle of questions raised by this troubling pro-infanticide argument concerns the rights of parents and the rights of children, questions rarely brought up in these discussions because they are uncomfortable for most people on both sides of the matter. There is a strain of thought, sometimes held by pro-lifers, ironically enough, that argues that children are the property of their parents. I find this view to be morally degenerate, and to justify infanticide when taken to its logical extreme. Children are human beings and cannot therefore be anyone else’s property. Parents have guardianship rights and duties that arise from their relationship to dependent children, but these emerge from the human nature of the adults and children involved, a human nature that cannot be separated from the rights of those humans. Babies have a right not to be killed, tortured, abused, beaten, and so forth—and children in general are self-owners whose limited capacity to vindicate their own rights temporarily delegates authority to their parents, but does not mean they cannot ultimately vindicate their rights when they have the capacity to assert them. I agree with Murray Rothbard’s basic breakdown that parents have the right to set the rules and children have the right to run away. Certainly a teenager can be bound by a curfew as a condition of living in his parents’ house. Before children are capable of asserting their rights and understanding the rules, things are a little trickier, but they still have basic rights that parents must respect, doing their best to assume what rights the children would want acknowledged if they were old enough to speak up—you can’t throw an infant into fire, despite what Benjamin Tucker said. Brutality against children and surely infanticide would be severe acts of criminality. Infanticide would be murder just as killing an adult would be murder.
Parents who cannot take care of their infants due to extreme financial hardship cannot, in my view, be legally bound to take care of their offspring, beyond finding a safe and reasonable caretaker for their kids. They cannot just abandon infants in the middle of the woods, but must find someone to care for the infant—a positive obligation taken on, at least in most normal circumstances, by virtue of being a parent. So the “pro-choice” option for a parent who cannot care for an infant is adoption or something similar; not killing the baby.
Babies are human beings, even before they are born. They have rights even before they can assert them. The state should butt out of all abortions and the moral issues should be handled by civil society and within the context of families and individual choice—the only way decisions can be made morally is if they are made voluntarily. But we are on the wrong track entirely, in my view, if we wish to dismiss the humanity and rights of human beings before they are born or before they are old enough to speak up.
Tags: Civil Society, Family, Morality, The State, Women 
Looking at the issue as one of development of a potential full human being, rather than as that of absolutes, may help. I have come to the conclusion that the bits of material present during the earliest stages of human gestation, though they can be said to be ‘alive’ in all senses, can hardly be claimed to be a “human being” with the same rights as a fully born person has. I tend to look at the “quickening” as a boundary, at which point that entity within has announced its presence quite specifically.
Taking the opposite view is now leading places like Arizona to consider backdating an alleged “pregnancy” to as much as 2 weeks before a sexual act has even occurred. As it is, the actual time of conception is only measurable from several more weeks forward, when either a period is missed or a test shows positive. I believe the clock should start ticking at that stage of affairs, and that a woman wishing to terminate the process should be honor-bound to do so as soon as possible, for her own sake as well as that of the incipient potential-human.
Steve Trinward | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply
Mr. Gregory:
Are you saying the state never has a compelling interest?
If I read you correctly you say the pre-born are human beings, but the mother has the right to control her body (kill the child).
If the state has no compelling interest before the child is born, why should we even be troubled if the child is killed after it’s born? What possible interest can the state have or exert?
Also, are you saying the pre-born child has rights except the right to live if someone more powerful than them decides to do away with them?
As to the horror of preventing a mother from commiting suicide, I find it impossible to think the state has any mechanism for preventing something like that. Beyond prevention, how could we sanction or punish someone who committed suicide? Exhume the body? Put the corpse in a prison cell and throw bread and water through a slit in the door two or three times a day?
I’m really not trying to be glib. These are important things to consider.
Phil Dillon | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply
Perhaps unsuccessfully, I wished to separate the issue of state involvement from the issue of morality and justice. I think there are at least four questions involved in any of these matters: (1) What is the proper role of the state? (2) What are the various rights of people involved, such that it would be unjust to forcibly override them? (3) How can these rights be vindicated? (4) What are the moral considerations entailed?
I find there are some acts that are immoral but do not amount to rights violations. There are rights violations that would not be appropriate to intervene in forcibly. And there are some matters where forcible intervention might possibly be warranted, but state intervention would not be justified or desirable.
In all these cases I’ve discussed, I oppose state intervention. I simply do not see it as the state’s proper role to be involved at all. The state is not a morally appropriate entity for any of this. I do not think the state has any legitimate compelling interest to intervene in people’s lives.
I believe it is not moral to use force to prevent a woman from having an abortion, even if that abortion is an immoral act, or, perhaps even if one’s theory of rights sees it as a rights violation.
I don’t think it’s a matter of the woman being more powerful than the baby that precludes the baby from having an absolute right–to say nothing of an enforceable right–against the woman, forcing her to carry the baby to term. If the woman were forced by some outside actor to give birth, she would no longer be more powerful in that case, and I don’t think her being forced to give birth can alter the nature of the baby’s rights in the abstract.
I don’t only believe that the state should legalize suicide. I find it morally objectionable, and unjust, to forcibly prevent someone from committing suicide in most circumstances, although we could consider suicide in many cases not to be a purely moral act in itself. I don’t see how a woman’s right to commit suicide could be sacrificed by virtue of her being pregnant, although this would affect the moral significance of such an act.
Anthony Gregory | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply
“I believe it is not moral to use force to prevent a woman from having an abortion.”
Would it be equally immoral to use force to prevent an “after-birth abortion”?
ThomasL | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply
ThomasL, no, not at all. For me, the entire distinction between very late-term abortion and infanticide is one that turns not on the moral significance of the baby, but on the fact that in the first case, we are dealing with one human being inside of another, the woman having rights over her body.
Anthony Gregory | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply
“There is a strain of thought, often held by pro-lifers, ironically enough, that argues that children are the property of their parents.”
Wow. I’ve been an active pro-lifer and have NEVER come across this “strain” of thought. Quite the contrary, parents are guardians (as you say) and the unborn children are self-owners with inborn rights to life, liberty, property–including their own bodies.
Where did you pick this up? I’m just curious.
ITA with adoption. But it’s been pro-lifers who donate to adoption and adoption-friendly pregnancy shelters. The state, on the other hand, has made it VERY difficult to adopt in the USA. Even worse, Hollywood films and TV are OK with “surrogate mothers” but adoption now has a stigma attached to it. Alas, I know far too many grandparents who are the true guardians of their grandchildren. The teen mothers insist on “keeping their child” but then hand the boy or girl off to Mom. That’s what happens when “babies have babies.” Sigh.
Jonathan Bean | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply
PS: Kudos to Anthony for raising a sensitive moral issue that libertarians generally ignore while they focus on the evils of the Fed (and that too is evil!).
Jonathan Bean | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply
The characterization of children as property is one that has existed a long time, and I have certainly heard it voiced among conservatives and even libertarians who were strangely pro-life at the same time. In some cases, I think it results from a particular interpretation of the Old Testament. But I’ve certainly heard many people deny that children have any rights against their parents. It has only been relatively recently that the beating of children—not just mild spanking, but severe abuse—has become as frowned upon as it is. Worldwide, the treatment of children as property has had plenty of precedent. I’m surprised it’s controversial to say this view is out there. I perhaps should have said “sometimes held by pro-lifers” instead of “often.” I will make that change.
Anthony Gregory | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply
Ironically,the same people who oppose abortion and posit adoption as an “alternative” also oppose the right of the adopted to access their own original birth certificates, original identity, family history, etc. Currently, “pro-lifers” are the largest block of oppositionists to the restoration of that right, once enjoyed by adoptees in every state. Some have gone so far as to claim that the adoptee rights movement is a front for abortion.
Marley Greiner | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply
The question of when life begins, within the earliest stages of pregnancy, is one of conscience, and is a corrollary to liberty of religious belief.
Those that hold to a strict understanding of Providence/God’s intervention are going to be against any form of abortion and sometimes birth control, itself. But, the spectrum goes from such a strict religious understanding to a “secular understanding” where individuals must take responsibility for their own choice, as to birth control and whether they want to continue to allow a zygote to develop into an infant. These individuals hold to individual responsibility and autonomy, and not religious framing. Similar arguments have been made as to “living wills,” and euthanasia.
The states that do allow abortion have a stipulation/limit for legal abortion, as these states allow the woman a choice about continuing her pregnancy. Since our country believes in liberty of conscience such issues of “when life begins” in the early stages of pregnancy should be left for religious authorities, families and individuals to decide, while states choose to uphold individual’s right of conscience concerning such issues.
angie vandemerwe | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply
I still struggle w/State involvement because I believe that government (the State) exists to protect life, liberty and property. By advocating the State staying out it, the State would inherently be protecting the taking of life. However, I want the State to stay within it’s proper boundaries.
I found the site below helpful: Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly, by Doris Gordon.
Austin | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply
There is no such thing as an after-birth abortion. It’s called infanticide. It is a cold-blooded murder of a truly innocent human being. Do not allow people who advocate the murder of innocents to get away with calling it anything but exactly what it is: murder.
Elizabeth Bernard Higgs | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply
Mr. Gregory,
As a libertarian, I have always been a believer of the freedom to choose and having to live out the consequences of those choices. I do not think it is acceptable to try to “mitigate” the consequences of our choices by taking away the choice or potential choice of someone else, like a very potential baby. This means that if a women makes the choice to have sex, the choice came with the possible consequence of a child. When rape or other coercive forms of sex takes place the choice was not made and no obligation to live out a forced consequence exists. (Bear with the following outlandish scenario I use to illustrate my point.) If I were a conjoined twin, decided to steal from someone, and wanted to cover up my actions by killing my twin (arguing that he is part of my body), it is not my choice to take a life then. Why is it when someone decides to have sex, knowing full well the natural consequences o their actions? Abortion is about choice. It’s just not the choice to cover up your actions or get rid of your consequences. This makes the question of whether or not “human life” begins at conception completely moot. Interesting article.
Sincerely.
Chris | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply
I agree that the argument becomes erroneous and despicable when it claims the baby is not human up to third trimester and eventual birth. Especially once after delivery and is murdered. It is disturbing that there are heartless humans like President Obama who support infanticide. I am a Libertarian who believes that individual right to life and liberty extends to human life in the womb. One of government’s role is to protect life and liberty.
Mr. Gregory, I do find a big contradiction with your opposition to the theory that children are the “property” of the parents; however, you argue in essence that the baby, who you agree is human and has rights, is the property of the mother and that she can dispose of him/her without State intervention. It seems that you agree that the State can intervene to protect children from their parents and if they run away. However, the State can’t intervene to protect the unborn baby? I agree with the Liberal argument that counters your’s with, “How can the State intervene with after birth abortions if they can’t before birth?” Your argument becomes invalid.
It is the easier route to say that the State must stay out of everything and allow the Individual to make his/her moral decisions about everything. As a Libertarian, I am passionate about Individual Liberty but also about the Natural Right to Life. Your Liberty ends when you want to trample on other peoples liberties and to harm others. Harm includes killing life. The State has a moral obligation to step in and protect life, even in the mother’s womb.
Bryan | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply
Mr. Gregory,
Have you seen this film?
Once you have (it is 33 minutes long) please provide an explicit answer in your post to the question: “When is it all right for a mother to kill the unborn baby in her womb?”
The same arguments supporting having the government “butt out” of the matter of abortion could be made for having the government butt out of murder of the born.
Being a libertarian does not mean (in my opinion) that there is no role for government any time. The libertarian mantra is “do no harm” (live your life but do no harm to someone else) and abortion by definition destroys another human being.
Thank you.
Carrie Dodson | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply
The argument that life at conception is less human than life at 39 weeks is ridiculously illogical. Science has shown beyond a doubt that life begins at conception because every ingredient of the whole human being is present.
If one follows any other logic, then there will be no consistency as to when “life” begins and babies who are undeveloped adults may also be considered less than a person and capable of legally being destroyed. This is often referred to as the “slippery slope” of the pro choice arguments.
If you think what I am suggesting may happen, it already does in China and has for years. Perhaps Female babies are not as “human” as Male babies? Can you see where this is going?
If murder of another person is a legal crime against society and it should be, for it is the greatest possible infringement of an individual’s rights, then voluntarily snuffing out the life of a baby also denies that human being whether born or not the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
As the article stated, children are not the property of their parents, they are entrusted to their parents. So is the unborn baby not the property of the woman who carries it. The baby is NOT her body to do with as she pleases. The baby is a perfectly distinct and fully separate human being. The notion that this is her body and she can do what she wishes with it including stopping the beating heart of a fully complete human being regardless of how small, is illogical and has no moral grounds. We actually already have sanctioned infanticide in the form of Partial Birth Abortion. A fully developed baby is rotated to a feet first position and the Doctor, Abortionist, reaches inside the Uterus and punctures the baby’s head with surgical scissors and suctions out the brains with a vacuum, while the baby’s head is still inside his or her Mother. This is legal because the head has not yet been born. The loop hole of this barbaric procedure is only the stepping stone to destroying children after birth. God help us all. This is evil epitomized.
Mary Petrini | Apr 7, 2012 | Reply
Please discuss the case when a monster is born and a decision is to be made. Would infanticide be murder? Thanks.
richard | Apr 7, 2012 | Reply
Mr. Gregory
I think I’ve got it. (1) The unborn is actually a human being (2) This human being has no enforceable right of protection from its mother. You say he state doesn’t. The law almost always says the father doesn’t (plus, a lot of fathers are breathing a sigh of relief when the mother says it’s “kaput”). In cases where the father tries to claim a right to speak for the child, the courts almost always decide against him. What right can the unborn child exercise? Can he or she pull an Uzzi and fire away?
Given that, I find it hard to understand why you’re so bothered by “post-birth” abortion or infanticide.
I read the stuff on the Journal of Medical Ethics website, including Peter Singer’s response. What I find amazing is that the medical community is appealing solely to what they call “reason.” They decry emotional responses, as though this is an issue for reason alone or the an emotional response is unreasonable. Have we really come to that? We’re not allowed to express our outrage at the grisly nature of the conversation or the “procedures” themselves. Do they really believe this is something we should be discussing over a friendly cup of coffee or a glass of Zinfandel? I’m sorry, I can’t go there. I studied theology for five years and the only theological language I can use to describe what I’m reading and hearing is “Goddammit, this is wrong!”
Phil Dillon | Apr 7, 2012 | Reply
I believe the baby, particularly late in the pregnancy, is indistinguishable from any other infant, except it is inside of ad dependent upon the mother. If you kill a pregnant woman, you have killed two. But the woman has a right to control her body. At the moment the infant is outside the womb, killing the infant has nothing to do with the woman exercising control over her own body. It is thus murder in every sense of the word.
Anthony Gregory | Apr 7, 2012 | Reply
Anthony, I think your problem is this: you want to recognize the clear reality that the unborn are human beings, yet as a libertarian, want abortion to be legal. Here is the problem. The baby cannot be evicted from the womb. If you kidnap someone and put them in their home, you are not justified in refusing them food. SImilarly, if you cause a baby to be inside your womb (or someone else does) it is a violation of the baby’s rights to kill it by removing it from the womb. You have a right over your own property, unless you force someone to be there (kidnapping). Similarly, you have a right over your own body, unless someone is inside it without their consent (pregnancy.)
However, I am not usre if a libertarian society could enforce this without violating other rights, as you point out. Perhaps we recognize it as murder, but look to voluntary abortion-free communities, doctors, and insurance companies.
I understand why you want abortion to be OK, but I believe the solution is to recognize it as a crime that cannot really be enforced. (Although perhaps a father should have a right to sue if he can prove the mother aborted his child.)
Timothy | Apr 7, 2012 | Reply
Carrie, you hit the nail right on the head. Libertarians do not believe government should just stay out all together which would be anarchism. Libertarians believe in individual liberty if it does not trample on others or harm others, as I said in my response.
Bryan | Apr 7, 2012 | Reply
Murray Rothbard tackled this issue in “On Liberty.” Assume life begins at conception so we don’t have to hammer out exactly when in the pregnancy we consider the fetus ‘human.’ It’s human from the start.
Once the baby is born, it’s a human with full property rights – that means no one is legitimately allowed to harm, much less kill, the child.
The contentious issue then is the period prior to birth. Does the mother have a right to abort the fetus? Rothbard’s answer was yes because (and here’s the important part):
when the mother decides she no longer wants the child and the child is in her womb, the child is now violating the mother’s property rights. The fetus is now invading the mother. And the mother can cause the fetus to be removed. ]
However, once the fetus is removed it must be allowed to, and even helped to, survive. It would become murder to kill the fetus.
This isn’t a response as to the morality of abortion. We can still find it repugnant to change one’s mind in such a fashion. But it is a logical application of property rights – no different than if I invite you to my house for dinner and then ask you to leave. If you don’t leave, you’re now violating my property rights.
J Oxman | Apr 8, 2012 | Reply
Well said! Definitely a must see film too.
Tony Escobar | Apr 9, 2012 | Reply
Do you think you’d be entitled to gun down an invited guest who didn’t leave when you asked him to? Would the law uphold your “right” to surgically remove him?
In the case of two competing rights (the right to life and property rights) are you saying that property rights trump the right to life? If so, how would you intepret our Declaration of Independence?
Phil Dillon | Apr 9, 2012 | Reply
Anthony,
I read this blog post when it was first posted, but did not comment. So,....
At conception, we have an instantiation of a human being. It is not complete (nor will it be for some number of years, say 14). But, given the ordinary state of affairs, it will eventually be a complete instantiation of a human being. Mammals give live birth. That is the nature of being a mammal as opposed to a turtle or a salmon.
In the “Merchant of Venice”, Shakespeare addressed the argument of a women’s control of her body. Shakespeare allowed the contracted pound of flesh, but not a drop of blood. In the same vein, the women does maintain control over her own body, but not someone else’s body. It is possible to claim, it is all about control over one’s body, but that control has to be exercised before there is a second body (or person) if control over one’s body results in the death of a second person.
I thought you skipped pretty lightly over the question when you claim killing a pregnant women was killing two people while allowing the women to kill the second person because it is “her body”. That seems like a logical contradiction to me.
I realize my argument will not convince you just as your argument has not convinced me. It is, in the end, quite a thorny problem to balance the life of the unborn against all the other arguments. If we were not mammals, it would all be a bit simpler.
Rick Caird | Apr 10, 2012 | Reply
Phil,
I find even the _idea_ that “the state has a compelling interest” in ANYTHING to be a horrible, hideous perversion of naked power.
“The state” is merely an idea, a cloak used by those in power to cover their aggression and violence in nice-sounding words.
That those in power want to justify their predation by some incantation called “compelling interest” only rationalizes yet greater abuse than they would otherwise get away with.
Bob Robertson | Apr 10, 2012 | Reply
Phil,
The right to (one’s own) life is the fundamental property right. Indeed, it is the source of all other property rights.
I expressly stated that the killing of the infant is a violation of property rights. But extricating from one’s self is not. Likewise, you can use force to extricate someone from your property, but taking it to the level of killing the offender is an illogical jump. Killing may become necessary if the individual in turn becomes violent towards you, but it is not reasonable to think that it goes from “okay, time to leave” to “get out or I’ll kill you!” at the drop of a hat.
J Oxman | Apr 10, 2012 | Reply
J Oxman
I’m trying to apply your rationale now to the unborn child. Is the child’s refusal to leave worthy of the violence inflicted on it?
I’m also fascniated by your argument that the child is property. If you’re right, it then becomes the ultimate Dred Scott. We can do to it whatever we like without any fear of sanction.
Bob
It seems to me that the individual can be every bit as tyrannical as the state. Read through this discussion and you’ll see that people don’t seem to bothered by the idea of expunging another life when his or her self-interest is threatened.
Phil Dillon | Apr 10, 2012 | Reply
Phil,
When have I said the child is property? In no case and in no way. In fact, the child has property rights flowing from its innate humanness. Property itself has no rights.
What do you mean by worthy? My argument is that when the child is no longer wanted in the womb, the mother has the right to remove the child. Any violence done post-removal is a violation of the child’s property rights.
There are two separate issues here – the termination of the pregnancy at the mother’s request (within her rights) and the termination of the child (a violation of the child’s rights).
J Oxman | Apr 10, 2012 | Reply
J Oxman
Your word games aren’t sufficient. You really can’t have it both ways. The essence of what you’re saying is that the woman has property rights and that includes protecting her property (her body) and anything within the environs of her property (the child) is property. You’re saying she has the right to dispose of the child in the same way one would dispose of un-wanted property. The essence of what you’re saying is that the un-born child is on par with a lamp-shade or an end table.
The problem with trying to thread the needle is that the needle usually gets stuck into someone other than the party wielding it.
Phil Dillon | Apr 10, 2012 | Reply
I find Mr. Gregory’s defenses of his pro-choice position to be illogical and under-developed.
He emphasizes a woman’s right to control her own body. But surely that right is limited when a woman voluntarily engages in sex and pregnancy is a foreseeable result.
Imagine I invite you out on my boat. Then, in the middle of the ocean, I decide I don’t want you on my private property (my boat) any more, so I throw you off. Obviously, I’ve murdered you. My right to “control” my property is limited by the fact that I invited you, an innocent party, onto it. Once I do that I’m responsible for your safety.
Mr. Gregory’s “control over her own body” argument really only supports abortion in case of rape. If the pregnancy results from voluntary sex, the argument collapses.
Richard | Apr 11, 2012 | Reply
Interesting article and a valiant attempt to try to inject a bit of logic into a discussion that is usually fueled by emotion. I would however like to mention a few point that may make some readers uncomfortable. One of the defining powers of the state is the monopoly on violence. The state reserves the right to violently impose any and all laws that it wishes to enforce. This right is for all intents and purposes, exclusive. Although a citizen may have the right to defend themselves, the state has the right to kill with impunity. This is exemplified by the states propensity for war and use of assassination, not to mention capital punishment. Now as to the question on abortion. I believe that you are making an error in your logic. If there were no state, and a woman decided to have an abortion, that abortion would be a contracted service between the mother and the service provider. The only person that would have a legitimate claim of damage may be the father of the child. A claim that isn’t even considered under today’s laws. In which case the father may be due damages in a court of arbitration. Again this assumes a situation without any State or laws. The situation would essentially be the same even after birth of the child. Without a state to act on the behalf of the child, the parents are the exclusive custodian of said child. Now you and I both may look at abortion and infanticide as horrible. However this is not a new issue. In ancient societies both situations were common. In fact in cultures where abortion was difficult or technically impossible, infanticide was the only option. Again this is horrible and in most situations it would be assumed that any parent would choose to find another caretaker rather than to just kill or abandon the child. One of the hallmarks of individual freedom is the idea that no group of people can have rights greater than that of the individual. No matter how horrible or outrageous the consequences may be, essentially children are completely dependent on their parents for life. So we are left with a situation where on the one hand you have a woman who may not want the baby and could choose either abortion or infanticide (to many people they are one in the same), or on the other hand to find someone to take care of the child in her place. Although we may have opinions as to which would be the preferable or moral choice, we truly have business making that choice for the mother. Again, who has a greater vested interest in the life of the child than the parent? If we as Libertarians (or Anarchists) are against the state how can we ever advocate forcing someone to do something against their will, including the baring, birthing and raising a child. I believe that if we evolved a world without a state then cases of infanticide or late term abortion would be rare and tragic but not punishable by the violence of the state.
Michael Ellis | Apr 13, 2012 | Reply