Abstract
Here I demonstrate that libertarianism is incompatible with a pro-choice stance, unless libertarians make an exception in the non-aggression principle, or else alter the definition of what a human being is.
After people have read this document, there will be no more arguments on the subject and people will take time out of their days to stand hand in hand in a circle singing “Kumbaya my lord.”
That is all.
Definitions
What is murder?
“Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).”
What is an aggressor?
“a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities; an assailant or invader.”
What is an intruder?
“a person who enters a building, grounds, etc, without permission”
What is abortion?
“the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.”
What is a embryo?
“the young of a viviparous animal, especially of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month.”
What is a fetus?
“(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.”
What is young?
“young offspring”
What is offspring?
“children … of a particular parent or progenitor.”
Original definition:
“child or young of a particular parent or progenitor.”
which is a circular definition, I have corrected it.
What is a child?
a person between first cell division of the embryo and full development; a boy or girl.
Original definition:
“a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.”
An impossible definition. If a young is a child and both a fetus and an embryo are a young, a fetus and embryo must also be a child.
Therefore, abortion, by definition, is the removal of a child from the uterus in order to end the pregnancy. The child could be in either two stages of development: An embryo, before the first two months of gestation, and a fetus, after the first two months of gestation. This expellation will almost certainly kill the child.
Opening Statement
This is an old and tired battle long fought with one side predominantly focused on the value of freedom and the other focused predominantly on the value of human life. One side arguing that pro-life is incompatible with personal freedom and the other arguing that pro-choice is incompatible with human dignity.
I hold without reservation that abortion is the premeditated murder of a human being. It should not be excused or tolerated in any society, especially a libertarian one.
Libertarians have long believed that all forms of aggression (an initiation of force.) against any human being is immoral. They have also believed that private individuals may take up cases against a murderer even though they are not the murdered.
Therefore, as a mother must aggress against the child and murder him, any person has the freedom and even an obligation, to seek justice against her.
Arguments
Isn’t the mother simply expelling an intruder?
One can only enter a place from another place. It might be argued that a child in the womb is an intruder because it brought itself outside of existence, into existence into the womb without the permission of the mother. Otherwise, the child can not be considered an intruder.
However, a child can not bring itself into existence. It is brought into existence by the mother and the father, and perhaps nature if you want to accuse it.
Further, a child in the stage of an embryo can not make any decision to intrude or aggress. Because the child has made no decision, he can not be considered either an aggressor or an intruder.
The child is completely innocent of any crime.
Since the child is completely innocent of any crime, and as it is incapable of performing any aggression, the mother must aggress against the child in order to expel the child into an environment in which it will surely die, or else to murder the child outright before expellation. In either case it is premeditated murder.
Since a child is brought into the world without its consent, why is it unjust to remove the child from the world without its consent?
Since it is considered murder to kill a person in his sleep, a fortiori, it is murder to kill a child in the womb. In either case, the person is presently unable to voice any objection to being murdered, but they are nonetheless capable of being murdered.
Since the genesis of the victim is irrelevant in any murder case, it is also irrelevant here.
Is the mother responsible for the child?
The mother has consented to to being responsible for the child when she consented to having sex with another man, regardless of her intent to have a child. It is common knowledge that no contraception is infallible, and therefore the act of sex is consenting to the fact that a child might be concieved and be her (and the fathers) responsibility, even if it is a remote possibility.
In any action a person performs, he is responsible for not only the intended results, but also the risks involved.
Is the mother responsible for the child even if she did not consent to sex?
Yes. To remain internally consistent with the non aggression principle, it must be so.
"And let it be noted that there is a problem even in cases where continued positive effort is called for in order to avoid causing harm. Let’s say I lock you in place with a gun in your hand; the hammer is cocked, held back by your thumb. If you ease the pressure, it fires and kills someone else also locked in place. Do you have the right to ease the pressure?
In another case, I’ve put you with your hand on a button. If you ease the pressure there, you cut off the current that is powering an elevator’s safe descent: the elevator will then just drop, almost certainly killing those within." -John Walker
Regardless of how you get to a point where you have every reason to believe you have life and death control over another person, you are responsible for that person or persons and the actions you take.
Isn’t a fetus only a human being once it is born? After all, the original definition of a child that you listed said that a child is only a child once he is born.
As I showed previously, it is an illogical definition.
A person is brought into being when first cell division begins. Cell division is important because it is the first time when two cells cease to exist, possessing half the DNA of the mother and half the DNA of the father, and form into one DNA sequence entirely unique to that new person. It is also the first sign of an organism with the potentiality of developing into a mature human being.
It is important to note that an embryo and fetus are not defined as children only to defend abortion. There would be no other reason to call an embryo and fetus as anything other than what they are: The early developmental stages of a human being: A child.
The fact of the matter is that I was once an embryo, you were once an embryo. We are both humans, therefore an embryo is a human. To say “I was never an embryo.” is as nonsensical as saying, “I was never a toddler.” You presently are not an embryo, but that does not therefore imply that an embryo is not human anymore than a toddler is not a human because you may not presently be a toddler.
Lastly, if we follow occam’s razor, it is a much easier explanation of human development to say that everything between a embryo to an elderly man is a single person. Trying to find the dividing line between where one organism turns from a fetus (some organism) into a baby (a person) is nigh on impossible, and it is nigh on impossible because it is one entity the entire time smoothly transitioning in its development. Just as an adult doesn’t wake up one day and turn into a elderly person, a fetus does not magically turn into a human being at some redundant demarcation point.
Isn’t an embryo a parasite? Why should a mother be forced to carry and nurture a parasite?
“But what humans, we may ask, have the right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host?” -Murray Rothbard
Regardless of whether you want to call the embryo or fetus a parasite or a symbiotic relationship, it is an innocent human being that deserves the respect and protections of any other human being. A child is dependent on his mother for protection and sustenance and the mother has an obligation to provide it to the best of her ability until she can pass the responsibility to someone more willing or capable.
This dependence on the mother is not exclusive to a child in the womb, but extends long after the child is born. If a “parasitical” baby outside of the womb can not be discarded in a trash can to starve to death, neither should a fetus which is in no degree more “parasitical”.
In spite of all the aforementioned, could I not simply state that murder is wrong in all cases except in which humans are in the first stages of their development: embryo and fetus? After all, is it not us that define what murder is?
I can not argue against arbitrary exceptions, but I’ll warn you that exceptions to morality are the first signs of an immoral person, and is the mark of our depraved society today. I have never seen a clear justification for this exception that’s not rooted in a bigoted desire for woman to have the ability to abort at whim.
What about if the child is mentally or physically disabled so that he will always need the care of his parents? Or what if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother?
No one is ever obligated to exchange their life for anothers. If a mother and her doctor make the decision to abort for this reason, so be it. If a doctor is caught falsifying information in order to commit an abortion, he should be prosecuted for murder.
Can abortion be forcefully stopped?
If abortion is murder, it may be treated in the same way as any other murder. Forcefully prevented, forcefully punished.
Do embryos and fetus’ have the same protections (Rights) as more developed human beings?
“Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born.” -Ayn rand
I maintain that all human beings, regardless of skin pigment, sex, development, or age all deserve the same protections as any other human being. The only reason the exception is made against the baby in the womb is to allow a mother to choose to kill her child so that she can save herself from a nine month inconvenience. That doesn’t strike me as a worthy exception to murder, and does not reflect the respect for life that is necessary for humans to govern themselves.
Further, embryos and fetus’ are not “potential beings”, they are human beings in an early stage of their development, with the potential of reaching maturity. Just as a sleeping person doesn’t lose his right to his own body because he is presently not able to make decisions for himself, a child in the womb doesn’t lose his right to his own body for the same reasons; There is every reason to suspect that the person will be able to exercise his own rights.
Don’t woman have complete authority over their own body? If so, then shouldn’t they be able to expel another person from their body at will?
If woman did have complete authority over their bodies, then the mother wouldn’t have the authority over a female in her womb. There would be some sort of divide-by-zero error and the universe would implode.
Since the universe hasn’t imploded, it’s clear that woman do not always have complete authority over their body. Just as a woman may not aggress against another person, which impedes her authority over her own body (She may not do with her body however she wishes.), a mother may not aggress against her baby inside or outside the womb.
Misc
All definitions were found at Dictionary.com
Libertarians for Life
This document is subject to numerous edits without notice.