In 300 words or less...
The libertarian position on abortion is this: there are as many positions as there are libertarians, just as there are as many positions as there are people in general.
At a minimum, to claim the status of "libertarian" a person must reject the use of coercion, threat of coercion, and fraud as a legitimate way of organizing society.
This leaves libertarians with two fundamental, and seemingly conflicting, positions.
.jpg)
(AP Photo/Danny Moloshok)
Libertarians with a conservative, traditionalist, religious or similar background typically declare that life begins at conception and that therefore the fetus is a human being with the same rights as any other human being.
Libertarians who come from a liberal, civil rights, nonreligious or similar tradition generally take the position that a fetus is not a sovereign individual until it is born, at which point it acquires the same rights as all other sovereign individuals.
There are, of course, as many variations on these two themes as there are people.
This seems to be an irreconcilable conflict of rights, pitting those of the fetus against those of the mother.
But a "right," to be a right, must apply to all individuals equally. Otherwise it's not a right; it's a privilege. What appears to be a conflict of rights is actually a conflict of opinions.
That's because the entire abortion issue rests on opinions. Positions for and against are inevitably interlaced with statements like: It's my belief, It's my conviction, I think, I feel, God says.
Even positions based on logic, reason, and science are still just individual opinions based on logic, reason, and science.
Until the day that unwanted pregnancy becomes obsolete (Biomedical science? Technology? Evolution?) no one has the right to coercively inflict an opinion on another.
So, at a minimum, the libertarian position should be: Keep government out of it.
Comments
I agree.
I believe that the decision to reproduce or not is best left to the individuals involved and that no one else, especially the government, has the right to interfere.
I agree with the author on almost all points. There is no universal "Libertarian Position on Abortion" because it would be predicated on the definition of a legal person.
I'm part of the crowd which believes a legal person should emerge well after conception, but probably before birth. The severing of the umbilical is a definable moment, but I have a hard time seeing an infant 3 seconds before that moment as all that different. However, I can understand why some might use that moment as their bright line nonetheless.
And, while I don't think a blastocyst should be considered a legal person, it does have its own DNA. It's new life (if not what I'd call a person yet). I can see a libertarian who does call it a person supporting government intrusion to defend that person's life.
It's possible to see rational views on both sides, yet disagree with one.
Regardless, government response (IF ANY) should be at the State level like nearly every other criminal law. Not Federal.
That's a cop-out, or at best an anarchist point of view, but few libertarians are anarchists. If I believe a fetus is a human life, and one of the few TRUE duties of the state is to protect human life, then I do not see keeping the government out of it as a libertarian solution. Conversely, if it's my OPINION that the feeble-minded, medically vegetated, etc. are a waste if air, and go forth with my euth squad to improve the planet, is keeping government out of it the libertarian position? Why not, it's my opinion. A core tenet of libertarianism, of ANY stripe, is self-ownership, and the religious, mystical, or delusional OPINIONS of others effect that ownership not at all. An anti-abortion libertarian is on the same footing as an anti-drug libertarian - you can believe drugs are wrong for you, or anybody to do, but the minute you bring coercion into the picture, you are no longer a libertarian. run out of characters aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aa
Scott is right, and he says it all for me. This time you copped out, Garry.
"An anti-abortion libertarian is on the same footing as an anti-drug libertarian"
Not if that libertarian defines abortion as murdering a person. Define "person" first. Then libertarians can discuss government's involvement with them.
Way back in 1975, when I was asked by a Denver Post reporter what the Libertarian Party's position on abortion was, I thought for a moment, and replied, "We are pro-choice." I did not mean we are pro-abortion, nor that we thought governments should force citizens to pay for abortions. I did mean that it is a private, individual matter to decide, and is not an appropriate matter for the state to decide. Women in particular are the people who suffer when abortion is outlawed; they also, if they are decent human beings, suffer when they make the decision to abort their babies. Leave them alone to make this decision on their own. However, if we force taxpayers to pay for abortions, it merely encourages irresponsible behavior by less-than-decent people. In the rare cases where an abortion is necessary for medical reasons, than her insurance or charitable contributions should cover it. I do believe that abortions for any reason other than medical should not be performed in the 3rd trimester.
There's one aspect of this volitile issue that 99% of all libertarians agree on:
To take money from people (in government's case, via taxes) to perform abortions -- what some would consider an act of murder -- is immoral and wrong.
I agree Richard.
the 'key' to this conundrum is: "to claim the status of "libertarian" a person must reject use of coercion, threat of coercion, and fraud, as a legitimate way of organizing society."
If one truly believes that a zygote is not a human being and govt is called in to "protect life", then force to stop abortion is being used on another sovereign being with a different opinion. Is a zygote ‘life’? Yes. Is it ‘human’? Ah, therein lies the rub; it is for some, and it is not for others –but it IS a zygote.
Can you respect the opinion of another if it is different from your own AND you believe that the action of that 'other' defines the act of murder?!
How can people who believe abortion is murder attempt to stop abortion without stepping on the sovereignty of another? One could attemp to convince the other to carry to term for some remuneration, and then take over the rearing and caring of the infant.
the 'key' to this conundrum is: "to claim the status of "libertarian" a person mus
The truth is : if my rights are respected and not interfered with and I aquiesce no other person can get hurt.Rights come from GOD/creator and are built on the order of the physics of this universe which he also created.Problems start when we interfere with folks that are not our children.And these same folks start trying to get us to pay for their decisions,in many ways.True rights can never get crossed up.If what I choose do is truely exercising my rights then my deeds will hurt no one.There is a man made law that says you can abort a zygote or child.It is not a right.But you will reap the the rewards of this universe.Your choice.Problem is it seems like the only people that have any "Choices"about anything are those that are choosing abortions and I can;t even choose what I want to eat or where to educate my kids.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!