- 06 Jul 2004 00:46
#375465
I think libertarians need a clear cut position on abortion. Our philosophy of self-ownership has been applied to virtually everything else, so why not abortion? First let me say that I was very opposed to abortion until a week ago, when I read Murray Rothbard's pro-choice argument in "The Ethics of Liberty." Basically it boils down to this:
1. A mother owns her body, and no one can use it without her consent
2. The fetus, even though it isn't part of her body, uses her body for nutrients
3. Therefore, the fetus cannot use her mother's body without her consent
However, I also strongly believe that the fetus is a human being with rights, just not full adult rights. It has at least partial self-ownership, and that fraction of ownership grows with increasing consciousness. At the very least, it has the right not to have its body aggressed against and killed. So what I propose is this: abortion is within the mother's rights as long as its passive, meaning the woman just denies it the nutrients which are part of her body and thus belong to her. Abortion violates the fetus's rights if it is aggressive, i.e., initiating force against the fetus to kill it. So whats the difference you say? Dead is dead, right? Well libertarians don't believe the end justifies the means. The means are everything. And maybe if the mother has to starve the fetus to death over a long period of time rather than have a doctor kill it immediately, she will think twice before aborting her child.
However libertarianism makes it clear that while it is immoral to violate a person's rights, what the person chooses to do with that right is not necessarily moral. It is within your rights to simply stand there while someone drowns, since you own your body and it is your choice whether to save him or not. But that doesn't make that action moral. Likewise with abortion. It is within your rights to deny the fetus the nutrients it needs to live, but I view it the same as letting someone drown.
1. A mother owns her body, and no one can use it without her consent
2. The fetus, even though it isn't part of her body, uses her body for nutrients
3. Therefore, the fetus cannot use her mother's body without her consent
However, I also strongly believe that the fetus is a human being with rights, just not full adult rights. It has at least partial self-ownership, and that fraction of ownership grows with increasing consciousness. At the very least, it has the right not to have its body aggressed against and killed. So what I propose is this: abortion is within the mother's rights as long as its passive, meaning the woman just denies it the nutrients which are part of her body and thus belong to her. Abortion violates the fetus's rights if it is aggressive, i.e., initiating force against the fetus to kill it. So whats the difference you say? Dead is dead, right? Well libertarians don't believe the end justifies the means. The means are everything. And maybe if the mother has to starve the fetus to death over a long period of time rather than have a doctor kill it immediately, she will think twice before aborting her child.
However libertarianism makes it clear that while it is immoral to violate a person's rights, what the person chooses to do with that right is not necessarily moral. It is within your rights to simply stand there while someone drowns, since you own your body and it is your choice whether to save him or not. But that doesn't make that action moral. Likewise with abortion. It is within your rights to deny the fetus the nutrients it needs to live, but I view it the same as letting someone drown.