Dictionary of Meaning

<<Back
Please select a letter:
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0-9

Libertarian perspectives on abortion

*** Shopping-Tip: Libertarian perspectives on abortion
{{template:libertarianism}} A uniquely controversial issue, particularly in American politics, is abortion. Libertarianism Libertarian positions tend to mirror those of other views: 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 unborn child has a right to live, and believe that an abortion is the initiation of fatal force against an utterly helpless victim. Though not a libertarian philosophy, Objectivist philosophy Objectivism has considerable influence on libertarian thought, and falls into the former camp; the website [http://www.abortionisprolife.com/ AbortionIsProLife.com] run by the Objectivist-influenced Capitalism Magazine is an extreme example of the "pro-choice" position about the rights of women: :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.[http://www.abortionisprolife.com/faq.htm] Libertarians For Life notes that both the platform of the United States Libertarian Party and Objectivist ethics 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.[http://www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html] The abortion debate among libertarians consists of multiple questions, including whether abortion should be illegal, at what level of government this should be enforced, whether or not there is a constitutional mandate one way or the other, and whether or not the government should fund abortions. The vast majority of libertarians are agreed on the latter question, at least, believing that government should not fund personal activity, especially activity of such a controversial nature. Harry Browne, the United States Libertarian Party U.S. Libertarian Party candidate for President for 1996 and 2000, believes that abortion is wrong, but there is no federal authority to deal with it. Furthermore, Browne has stated his opposition to ''Roe v. Wade''. The United States Libertarian Party platform states "that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides," and holds that abortion should be legal but never state-funded or required because "the government should be kept out of the question"[http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#womerigh] Many other libertarians likewise split from conventional positions. For example, some doubt not the authority or morality of government to pass laws against abortion, but the effectiveness of such laws. Abortion laws may turn out to 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 some of the biggest threats to individual liberty. Many libertarians feel that the abortion issue does not divide them as fiercely as the American mainstream, since libertarians have so much in common taken as a whole. Other libertarians view one's stance on this issue as absolutely vital, and may not see opposing views as holding true to libertarian values. However, many leaders of the Libertarian Party itself feel there is no actual controversy on the issue except among those who don't really understand natural law or Libertarianism. They point out their party's role is to point out voluntary institutions to solve problems, not pre-judge the solutions in specific cases, which an abortion law does. They point out that the right to act in perceived self-protection is not considered even a matter of judicial review in common law, so the status of the fetus is as irrelevant as one mountain climber cutting the rope so his companion falls to his death to save himself; also, the creating of a protected class of persons--whose death, irrespective of circumstances would be viewed as murder-- is repugnant to the Constitution and would involve courts in endless second-guessing of mothers or draconian enforcement characteristic of such laws; and in any event the trend of Libertarian opinion is against punitive measures in favor of excommunion or exile in extreme cases. Instead, the Libertarian Party says the real solution is for citizens to again look to the voluntary and subsidiary institutions--person, family, religion--actually competent in the matter, noting that they are often hindered from sensible acts by government policies encouraging abortions, making adoptions difficult, hindering contraception, turning child support into a racket where government collects lucrative fees, and demeaning fathers; and in addition government policies that create economic hardship. As a result, its platform says simply that (coercive) government should stay out of the issue (Source: LP 2002 Summary Platform; Members of US LP Platform Improvement Committee). In this, its position is actually quite similar to another Institution basing itself on natural law, the Catholic Church, which allows abortions for medical reasons and sanctions misdeeds through excommunion--but errs, say critics, in attempting to enlist the government in creating punishments not just for Catholics but others, subverting against its own doctrine of subsidiarity or problem solving by institutions closest to those involved. (Source: ABORTION Catholic Encyclopedia).

External links

- Libertarians for Choice Pro-choice libertarian perspective
- Libertarians for Life Pro-life libertarian perspective
- Women's Rights and Abortion National Platform of the Libertarian Party Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta Georgia
- Are There 'Pro-Life' Libertarians?, a question answered by Mary_Ruwart Dr. Mary Ruwart Category:Abortion Category:Libertarianism eo:Libertarianismaj vidpunktoj pri abortigo

*** Shopping-Tip: Libertarian perspectives on abortion