Libertarian perspectives on abortion 215695 224930622 2008-07-11T01:37:29Z Sardanaphalus 427947 updating link using [[Project:AutoWikiBrowser|AWB]] {{globalize/US}} {{Abortion debate (sidebar)}} {{libertarianism}} [[Abortion]] is a uniquely controversial issue. Among [[Libertarianism|libertarians]], this debate consists of multiple questions, including: * whether abortion should be illegal * if so, at what level of [[government]] this should be enforced * whether or not the government should fund abortions The vast majority of libertarians are agreed on the latter question, believing that government should not fund personal activity, especially activity of such a controversial nature. However, as to whether abortion should be legal, they are split as equally as the mainstream.<ref>[[United States Libertarian Party| Libertarian Party News]], [http://www.lp.org/lpn/9807-pulse.html ''Libertarian Party News'', July 1998.]</ref>{{Verify credibility|date=June 2008}} Many libertarians believe that a woman's ownership of her own body, and therefore her right to control it, includes her right to terminate her pregnancy without any interference. Others believe the fetus has a human right to life, and that an abortion is the initiation of fatal force against a helpless victim.{{Fact|date=June 2008}} == Pro-choice positions == Though not accepted by all libertarians, [[Objectivist philosophy]] has had considerable influence on libertarian thought.{{Fact|date=June 2008}} One website run by the Objectivist-influenced [[Capitalism Magazine]] is an example of the [[pro-choice]] position: :A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb.<ref>[http://www.abortionisprolife.com/faq.htm Abortion is Pro Life<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> The [http://pro-choicelibertarians.net Pro-Choice Libertarians] group lists the following reasons they oppose government involvement in the abortion issue: "The fetus is not a human being with rights until it is born (based on a number of rationales) and/or only the mother confers rights on the fetus; even if the fetus has rights, and abortion is murder, the rights of the mother to evict trespassers -- for whatever reasons -- through abortion are greater (based on a number of rationales); the government is the problem, not the solution, including in this issue; it's my body and the government should keep its laws off it; people can decide this issue in their private, contractual communities; only voluntary means of convincing a woman to have a child are libertarian; the decision on whether it is murder is based on political power and adult women have more power; it is wrong to force a deformed baby or unwanted child to come into the world."<ref>[http://pro-choicelibertarians.net List of Just Some of the Reasons Libertarians Want Government out of the Abortion Issue], at [http://pro-choicelibertarians.net Pro-ChoiceLibertarians.net].</ref> == Pro-life positions == [[Libertarians For Life]] notes that the principles of both the [[United States Libertarian Party]] and [[Objectivist ethics]] require some obligation to children and counter with an appeal to the [[non-aggression principle]]: :Non-aggression is an ongoing obligation: it is never optional for anyone, even [[pregnant]] women. If the non-aggression obligation did not apply, then earning money versus stealing it and consensual sex versus [[rape]] would be morally indifferent behaviors. The obligation not to aggress is pre-political and pre-legal. It does not arise out of [[contract]], agreement, or the law; rather, such devices presuppose this obligation. The obligation would exist even in a [[state of nature]]. This is because the obligation comes with our [[human nature]], and we acquire this nature at conception.<ref>[http://www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Libertarians For Life believe human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization. They believe abortion is [[homicide]], the killing of one person by another and that there is never a right to kill an innocent person. They also believe a prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body and that parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm. They argue that no government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn, and that the proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them. They say none of their arguments are based upon religious belief, and are intended to appeal equally to [[atheists]] and [[theists]]. This is a point of pride for their group, claiming to rely on [[science]] and reason while both anti-abortion allies and pro-abortion opponents use what they view as non-scientific or unreasoned arguments.{{Fact|date=June 2008}} ==U.S. Libertarian Party position== The [[U.S. Libertarian Party]] [[political platform]] (2008) <ref>[http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml ''National Platform of the Libertarian Party''], section "Abortion"</ref> states: that "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.". Rather than pre-judging the solution in specific cases as abortion law does, groups like the Libertarian Party of New Jersey hold the real solution is for citizens to look to the voluntary and subsidiary institutions – person, family, religion – actually competent in the matter.<ref>[http://www.njlp.org/platform.php ''Platform of the New Jersey Libertarian Party''], section "Family Life</ref> It notes that people are often hindered from sensible acts by government policies with effects such as encouraging abortions, making adoptions difficult, hindering contraception, or turning child support into a lucrative racket. [[Harry Browne]], the Libertarian Party candidate for President for 1996 and 2000, stated his opposition to ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' and believed that abortion is wrong, but that there is no federal authority to deal with it.{{Fact|date=June 2008}} == Other views == A number of libertarians split from conventional positions. For example, some do not doubt the authority or morality of government passing laws against abortion, but claim that such laws would be futile in stopping abortion, as drug laws are allegedly futile in stopping drug use. Others fear that an abortion ban would start a "War on Abortion," parallel to the "[[War on Drugs]]" and "[[War on Terror]]," which many libertarians view as major threats to individual liberty.{{Fact|date=June 2008}} Some 'individualist feminists' are concerned that by focusing narrowly on state subsidisation of abortion access, libertarian men are neglecting statist anti-abortion measures such as prohibiting young women's access to abortion without parental consent, onerous statist regulation of private abortion clinics, limitations on D&X abortions, prohibition of medical abortion and other incremental anti-abortion policies. They view any attempt to prohibit abortion, whether prohibitionist or incrementalist, as statist.{{Fact|date=June 2008}} Dr. Walter Block, economist at [[Loyola University]], offers an alternative to the standard choice between "pro-life" and "pro-choice": what he terms "evictionism." According to this moral theory, the act of abortion must be conceptually separated into the acts of (a) eviction of the fetus from the womb; and (b) killing the fetus. Building on the libertarian stand against trespass and murder, Block maintains the legitimacy of the first act, but, in certain circumstances, not of the second act. When the following conditions are met, the woman may legally abort: (a) the fetus is not viable outside the womb; or (b) the woman has announced to the world her abandonment of the right to custody of the fetus; and (c) no one else has "homesteaded" that right by offering to care for the fetus.<ref>Walter Block, [http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf ''Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy''], [http://www.walterblock.com Walter Block personal web site.]</ref> ==See also== *[[Abortion]] *[[Abortion debate]] *[[Libertarianism]] *[[Libertarians for Life]] *[[Pro-life]] *[[Pro-choice]] ==References== {{Reflist}} 5. Platform of the New Jersey Libertarian Party, section on "Family Life" http://njlp.org/content/view/13/32/#FreedomandResponsibility ==External links== * [http://www.pro-choicelibertarians.net Pro-Choice Libertarians] Activist network that promotes pro-choice view within libertarian movement * [http://www.l4l.org Libertarians for Life] Pro-life libertarian perspective * [http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#womerigh Reproductive Rights] National Platform of the Libertarian Party Adopted in Convention, July 2006, Portland, Oregon * [http://www.self-gov.org/ruwart/q0116.html Are There 'Pro-Life' Libertarians?], a question answered by [[Mary Ruwart|Dr. Mary Ruwart]] {{Abortion debate-horizontal}} [[Category:Abortion debate]] [[Category:Libertarian theory|Abortion]] [[eo:Libertarianismaj vidpunktoj pri abortigo]]