Libertarians and Abortion

[gusl]

Libertarians for Life

Libertarians are usually pro-choice. "Why?", one might ask, "it's life liberty and property. The life of the child belongs to him/herself, not to the mother. Killing the foetus is a clear violation of his/her right to life.".

Many libertarians (I think) say:
"If I don't have the right to do it, neither does the state, so if I'm not willing to punish the murderous mother or doctor myself, then it shouldn't be illegal."(*)
But this argument also applies to infanticide, which should make it an unpopular choice of arguments. (I'm not saying that should illegal either: how often does a parent kill his/her own children? I am wearing my moderator hat, so I shall remain agnostic through the discussion.)

When does a child begin to own himself?
Full rights aren't given until people turn at least 18 in most places around the world. Obviously, the development is continuous, so these laws must be imperfect.

In the womb, the bodies are connected, so we can't assume inseparability. This means that even if all the criteria against abortion are met, it is still questionable whether the mother has the right to end the foetus's life, since it is, in a way, part of herself.


Practicality:

Rights and Enforcement
If a right isn't enforceable, is it still a right?

Self-Support
If the child can't feed himself, or secure protection for his own life, does he still have a right to life? If so, does this entail that parents must also care for the child?

--------------------------

That was the idea I wanted to focus on, but, as usual, I got carried away.

Comments

[alsoname.livejournal.com]

"it is still questionable whether the mother has the right to end the foetus's life, since it is, in a way, part of herself."

Wait a minute, suicide is against libertarian philosophy?

Re:

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

au contraire.
I was saying that the mother may still have the right to kill the foetus. Can you help me choose better words?

[pyran.livejournal.com]

As far as I'm concerned, a baby isn't a legitimate human until it achieves self-sufficiency. If a premature baby can survive, that's one thing; if it can't, all the arguing and debating in the world won't make it a viable human being.

My libertarian argument for pro-choice goes like this: it's none of their damned business. The government has no more business telling women what they should do with an unborn fetus than they do telling me what I should do with my left leg. This also goes to the inseparability argument -- I don't see how that's a viable argument. If I'm reading what you wrote correctly, than abortion would be in some form a kind of partial suicide. But to me, suicide is also none of anyone's damned business -- I have every right to do with my body what I want, and if I decide that I don't want to live anymore, that's my decision. (Note that this all ends the moment what I do with myself interferes with another, which is the main difference between suicide by sleeping pills and, say, suicide by strapping explosives on yourself and walking into a market.)

That may have been a bit more rambling than intended. I'm tired.

[chronicfreetime.livejournal.com]

There is no such thing as a self-sufficient human. We are way too social and specialized for that. I'm guessing you just meant viability.

[pyran.livejournal.com]

Self-sufficient in only the most basic of senses -- socially, humans are very rarely if ever self-sufficient. Physically, however, they can be -- the heart beats without external influence, for example.

[jetcat.livejournal.com]

i agree that as long as the fetus/baby is physically connected to the mother's body, it does not have any rights of its own--it is essentially a subordinate extension of the mother's body, like a leg or an arm. there is no law against self mutilation (including amputation), at least, not that i know of. once the umbilical cord is cut (mother and baby are separated), the baby becomes an independent person and has a right to life. although the baby will still be dependent on some person to supply it with food and tends to its other needs, this person no longer needs to be the birth mother.

of course, one could argue that siamese twins are also physically connected. does one twin have the right to kill the other?

in my opinion, this decision comes down to whether or not the two twins are equally dependant on each other or if one is subordinate to the other. i see the latter case as being somewhat analogous to a mother and a fetus, and thus, the dominate twin should have the right to terminate the life of the subordinate twin.

[selfishgene.livejournal.com]

Infanticide is OK. An infant cannot survive without the parents massive efforts for that survival. If they don't want to make that effort they should not do so. A swift deliberate killing may be called for, rather than letting a child die of neglect. There is is also no duty on the parents to hand the child over to the state or another party for care if they don't want raise it themselves.
A person can have no rights or property that it cannot defend.
(This is NOT a standard libertarian position. Don't judge all libertarians by me.;)

[chronicfreetime.livejournal.com]

A person can have no rights or property that it cannot defend.

That's not a libertarian position. I'm not really sure what to call it, as even most anarchists have a less brutal vision for the world.

Arguably, the whole point of government is to preserve those rights you cannot always defend yourself. The very first purpose of government is to prevent retribution killings, and thus to recognize justice as something more subtle than whatever individual use of force permits.

[jetcat.livejournal.com]

i agree that in principle, the gov't should preserve the rights that citizens cannot always defend for themselves. however, in practice, it is true that a person only has the rights that he/she can defend.

for example, look at the way america treats the mentally ill and the elderly. it is shameful and often cruel and abusive. these are people who, for various reasons, cannot defend their own rights. the gov't, instead of protecting these people's rights, subjects them to cruel and ignominious conditions, which often defy even the most basic civil liberties. i have witnessed first hand the treatment of people in convalescent homes and have personally experienced being locked up in psych ward for a brief period of time. the things i saw and experienced were truly appalling.

[selfishgene.livejournal.com]

I don't think that parents generally are a threat to their own children. I would far rather see the occasional case of a mother drowning her children; than have the state decide how parents must educate and raise their children. Mandatory schooling, vaccination, etc. are more serious abuses of children than 99% or parents ever commit. The legal fiction that the state is 'protecting' the child is the justification for massive coercion.

[chronicfreetime.livejournal.com]

I don't see how criminalizing infanticide leads to mandatory schooling.

[selfishgene.livejournal.com]

It concedes the state's legal 'interest' in the child, which can be (and has been) abused.

[chronicfreetime.livejournal.com]

That's just a slippery slope argument; you still haven't explained why the state has any less "interest" in guarding the rights of children than those of adults.

Anyway, all evidence is that a state which protects human rights and educates children wins over one which does not. Civilization is more than "abuse" of state power. Do you reject all government on the basis that we must give up some power as individuals, which is then inevitably abused?

[selfishgene.livejournal.com]

Do I reject all government? Yes.
I don't know how to abolish the state but I would if I could. We don't know how to cure cancer but nobody says we should just accept it. We make every effort to conquer cancer. I regard the state as a very similar parasite. At best, we might say that some strains of the parasite are less virulent. The less virulent strains are more successful; in the same way that communicable diseases spread more, if they kill their victims slowly.
Little that is good in civilization was built by the state or by a government committee.

[chronicfreetime.livejournal.com]

Man is social. Governments compete too.

[mortal-sin.livejournal.com]

If one does away with the premise that we are imbued with certain inalienable rights the first question, when a child comes to own him or herself, is moot. Rights are guaranteed by social convention, and are not necessarily dependent on any characteristics of human development. Society, by whatever processes it employs, makes a determination regarding the age of majority that best suits its interests. If the right is intrinsic the state either makes an approximation, or the age is determined by the foundations establishing the right and implemented by the state.

On to the question of practicality.

Is an unenforceable right still a right? It seems to me that it is, whether viewed as an intrinsic characteristic of human life, or a (more or less) arbitrary social decree. In the first case it is assumed to be an objective fact of reality and requires no human action upon with the possible exception of recognition. In the second case all that is required is that it be acknowledged and legitimated by the proper entity, be it the people, the elite, the clergy, an autocrat, etc.

Regarding the last point, is the right to life necessarily linked to the ability to live independently? In a society as dispersed (specifically in terms of the division of labor) are any of us able to provide for ourselves without interacting with others? There are those better able, and many worse; children, to be sure, are among the least able to provide for themselves, but it seems to me to be a question of degree. The question is, to what extent is anyone actively responsible for the continued existence of another, and who bears that responsibility. Depending on the premises that established the right to life the spectrum runs from no responsibility to interminable responsibility, and from no one to every human.