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

[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.