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

[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.