A Libertarian case for supporting abortion rights even if you believe that "life

[Beet]

begins at conception."

I've started to see the reasoning used recently that a libertarian opposes abortion rights because they believe the fetus's "life begins at conception." This reflects a relatively new but historically quixotic shift in the abortion rights proponents' argument that at a conception or prior to first consciousness, human rights should not be accorded to the fetus-- a position I hold myself. Of course, abortion rights proponents have always implicitly held these views but until relatively recently they were a much smaller part of our case.

This position is not the conventional abortion rights argument as it stood circa 1973. The original argument was in fact more grounded on libertarianism. It took no explicit position on when "life begins".

The point is that from a libertarian standpoint, even if you accord a fetus full human rights, it does not follow that the government should force the mother to carry it in her body, feeding off of her, for 9 months. This is obviously a gross violation of personal rights, far more serious than property rights. In fact, it could be argued that it is similar to governmentally enforced rape.

This is why the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (1973) identified viability as an important line of demarcation. The reasoning for identifying viability is that this is the point where the fetus can survive independent of physical demands on the mother. The basis for this ruling is libertarian.

It is possible of course, to be a libertarian and still be pro- life, as there are all different kinds of libertarian thinking. But it is not the case that believing that a fetus should be accorded human rights obligates the libertarian to be pro- life.

[Beet]

The point is that from a libertarian standpoint, even if you accord a fetus full human rights, it does not follow that the government should force the mother to carry it in her body, feeding off of her, for 9 months. This is obviously a gross violation of personal rights, far more serious than property rights. In fact, it could be argued that it is similar to governmentally enforced rape.

No it isn't. A mother has the responsibility to provide for her children, both in the womb and out.

It could be argued that this amounts to human slavery.

[Beet]

If pregnancy is compared to slavery and the child is considered a trespasser, why isn't the child simply removed and placed in a respirator or some artificial means to help save their life?

That's exactly what you do. That's why viability is an important demarcation line.

[Beet]

Does the libertarian in this brave new world think there is a right to not feed their children, and let them starve to death?  Surely they don't think it is right to just turn the kid over to the state to pay for. I am not sure of the difference here between the kid and the fetus. It takes money to take care of a kid, and what is the difference between money and having a kid in your womb, other than perhaps a matter of degree? Both are theft on this planet it seems to me.

Wait... when did it become illegal for parents to give their children up for adoption?

You are confusing two very, very different things. One is the the obligation of any specific individual to be burdened with child rearing.... which does not exist in our society. Hence, no one is forced to adopt orphans, nor are parents barred from giving up their children to be adopted by others.

The other is the right of children to be taken care of. But this has nothing to do with the negative liberties associated with libertarianism. Rather, it is a positive right associated with the welfare state. Which I would happily assert.

Still, even in the world where children are given the inherent right to be nurtured, this is done either by private orphanages or by the state through taxes. No one will argue that the state has the right to seize any woman that it deems to be the mother off the street and force this mother to provide for a given orphan for the next 18 years. A libertarian might even argue that if a child were to starve, it still does not justify this forcible seizure, which would be the equivalent of human slavery.

[Beet]

Viability is defined as the ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb. You are right that it may vary according to circumstance.

[Beet]

I am making a point about the helpless.  Even in the real world, charities and adoption without "stolen" tax money could not take care of them all, and many would die. One might draw a distinction between the coercion of writing a check to the state, and having to carry a fetus to term, but other than that to me there is no difference. And who would want to adopt a severely handicapped kid with huge attendant expense and time, etc.?  Very few. Heck, it is hard to find homes for a lot of black kids now, or it used to be. They go to orphanages supported by the state.

We are assuming here in this hypothetical discussion that a fetus is every bit as human as an actually born kid.

Huge difference, Torie. One is taking a money slice out of voluntary transactions: if you don't want to be taxed, then don't transact. The other is making a direct physical demand on the individual's body and time. It's like conscription, only more intimate.

That's why the government can't say that Torie, for example, must give his kidney to save the life of some other person. That's far more intrusive than a tax.

[Beet]

I am making a point about the helpless.  Even in the real world, charities and adoption without "stolen" tax money could not take care of them all, and many would die. One might draw a distinction between the coercion of writing a check to the state, and having to carry a fetus to term, but other than that to me there is no difference. And who would want to adopt a severely handicapped kid with huge attendant expense and time, etc.?  Very few. Heck, it is hard to find homes for a lot of black kids now, or it used to be. They go to orphanages supported by the state.

We are assuming here in this hypothetical discussion that a fetus is every bit as human as an actually born kid.

Huge difference, Torie. One is taking a money slice out of voluntary transactions: if you don't want to be taxed, then don't transact. The other is making a direct physical demand on the individual's body and time. It's like conscription, only more intimate.

That's why the government can't say that Torie, for example, must give his kidney to save the life of some other person. That's far more intrusive than a tax.

It is different, and than the issue is what weight to give to those differences, which is subjective. Both all the examples come under the category of coercion, since a lot of the "voluntary" transactions, like making a living and securing an income, and buying essential stuff to consume, are taxed.

That's true enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can be reasonably certain about viability during the time period where well more than 9 out of 10 abortions are performed... the first trimester or within one month of it. You can also be reasonably certain at the very end stages of a pregnancy. There is only a window of some weeks where you are unsure. According to this line of reasoning, there would be nothing wrong with testing viability by removing the fetus from the womb.

I am not trying to hold self identified libertarians to some kind of pro choice standard... you can be a libertarian and still be 100% pro life. All I am saying is that the original pro choice argument has a very libertarian genesis, and many people today seem to be forgetting this. Judging by how this thread has progressed, I am partially right.