Abortion: The Ethics of Liberty

[TheLastMohican]

The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard

A few excerpts:


The Premise

WE HAVE NOW ESTABLISHED each man’s property right in his own person and in the virgin land that he finds and transforms by his labor, and we have shown that from these two principles we can deduce the entire structure of property rights in all types of goods.

Another argument of the anti-abortionists is that the fetus is a living human being, and is therefore entitled to all of the rights of human beings. Very good; let us concede, for purposes of the discussion, that fetuses are human beings—or, more broadly, potential human beings—and are therefore entitled to full human rights. But what humans, we may ask, have the right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host? Clearly no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either.

In short, it is impermissible to interpret the term “right to life,” to give one an enforceable claim to the action of someone else to sustain that life. In our terminology, such a claim would be an impermissible viola*tion of the other person’s right of self-ownership. Or, as Professor Thom*son cogently puts it, “having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body—even if one needs it for life itself.”

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.

If accepted for legal purposes, this argument would have some interesting implications for the procedures of abortion. It would be legal to remove a fetus from the womb, but not to kill it directly (especially not when it is capable of breathing on its own). That could necessitate some strange practices, but it would, at least in my opinion, make the legalization of abortion philosophically consistent. The basic rule is that we are not allowed to kill children, but we are not required to nurture them, either. It gives us the simple freedom to keep to ourselves.

Thoughts?

 

[Jeffster]

Sounds like yet another way for people to not take responsibility for their actions.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Sounds like yet another way for people to not take responsibility for their actions.

Or rather, to not be held legally responsible for their lack of action.

 

[BlackCat]

I think people have the right to do what they want to their bodies. A fetus is apart of a woman's body, so if she doesn't want the kid then it's her choice. I don't see how this is a legal issue at all.

 

[Jeffster]

I think people have the right to do what they want to their bodies. A fetus is apart of a woman's body, so if she doesn't want the kid then it's her choice. I don't see how this is a legal issue at all.

I could also easily oversimplify the issue from the other side, but the argument has been done to death.

 

[TheLastMohican]

I think people have the right to do what they want to their bodies. A fetus is apart of a woman's body, so if she doesn't want the kid then it's her choice. I don't see how this is a legal issue at all.

It's a legal issue because the fetus is a separate organism, and its "right to life" is arguably protected by the Constitution.

 

[Feops]

Allowing something to die through inaction while it is within ones sphere of responsibility is murder. His point is to abandon this sphere entirely so as to remove all middle ground. The ethics of such a simplification are gruesome.

I think the more practical dividing line is when society considers a fetus to be a functional human being. My own opinion falls back to "I think, therefore I am", for issues of abortion and also of the severely mentally impaired.

Edits: Wording.

 

[JocktheMotie]

I think people have the right to do what they want to their bodies. A fetus is apart of a woman's body, so if she doesn't want the kid then it's her choice. I don't see how this is a legal issue at all.

The anti abortionist would argue that the choice is not after realizing you're pregnant, but the choice involved in having sex.

It's like looking for your parachute to put on, after you've already jumped.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Allowing something to die through inaction while it is within ones sphere of responsibility is murder. His point is to abandon this sphere entirely so as to remove all middle ground. The ethics of such a simplification are gruesome.

What would you consider to be a person's "sphere of responsibility"?

I think the more practical dividing line is when society considers a fetus to be a functional human being. My own opinion falls back to "I think, therefore I am", for issues of abortion and also of the severely mentally impaired.

How can the level of awareness of the child be determined?

 

[BlackCat]

All of those arguments are totally valid. This is why it won't get resolved easily. I was just putting my opinion out there.

 

[Feops]

What would you consider to be a person's "sphere of responsibility"?

The scope and length of this responsibility is handled on a case by case basis so I can't answer this properly without writing a book.

But to generalize a bit? When an individual is considered by society to be responsible for a dependent. For example, a surgeon is intensely resposible for a disabled patient under the knife, somewhat responsible to provide medical information afterwards, and then at some point the relationship ends.

How can the level of awareness of the child be determined?

It would be interesting to know how well we've researched the mental capacity of a fetus. I do know that there's a point at 12 weeks where brain activity is first registered, so that would seem a safe 'most conservative' mark. There may be another critical point in brain development that allows basic cognition, and if this consistantly takes place (say at 13 or 14 or whatever) this would also be a safe point.

 

[Kangirl]

I feel so ambiguous about the issue of abortion. If pushed to take a stance, I am pro-choice, and mainly for practical purposes. Women will always try to abort their fetuses, accepting that reality and regulating it/making it safe is the best option, imo. But am I morally OK with abortion? No, not completely. Nor would I have one myself. And I am less OK with it the further along a pregnancy goes. If someone were to conclusively discover that a fetus can feel pain or suffer at X weeks, I would reconsider being pro choice.

If accepted for legal purposes, this argument would have some interesting implications for the procedures of abortion. It would be legal to remove a fetus from the womb, but not to kill it directly (especially not when it is capable of breathing on its own). That could necessitate some strange practices, but it would, at least in my opinion, make the legalization of abortion philosophically consistent. The basic rule is that we are not allowed to kill children, but we are not required to nurture them, either. It gives us the simple freedom to keep to ourselves.

The bigger problem with this would seem to be the consequences for already-born children. Morally, the remove-but-don't-actively-end-the-life of a fetus seems similiar to ethical end-of-life issues, where we have terminally ill patients dying of starvation and dehydration because it is illegal for a doctor to take active steps to end that person's life, so it becomes this passive process. Remove the means to life, but don't actively end that life.

Again, not sure how I feel about that.

 

[CrystalViolet]

I always find it strange that people who are most heavily invested in pro life, tend to be grand mothers, and men. That is a personal observation, and in no way fact...I used to run a medical lab, near an abortion clinic, so I often had to dodge protesters.
I'm pro-choice, but not vehemently so. It irritated me though, when the grannies, used to hassle the young girls though. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't support both mother and child.
One regular protestor, it turns had all her kids taken from her by social services...I found her somewhat morally repugnant, but my point is 1) those who not capable of carrying a pregnancy either because they weren't ever capable, or no longer capable, seemed to be the most invested in pro life
2) because of this, view the moment of conception and carrying the pregnancy to term as sacred. No matter how logically you present the issue, a great deal of pro-lifers won't or can't see it as such because there is so much emotionality attached to the issue.

They cannot compromise in the slightest.

 

[BallentineChen]

Something I've read that struck me is the phrase "moment of conception," when the sperm enters the egg. The idea that "new life" is created at that moment doesn't seem true, because a fertilized egg is actually an extension of two different organisms. They grow life out of pre-existing life. Eventually, the fertilized egg might develop to have its own consciousness, but its life didn't start at its conception. If you don't try to make that distinction, you can trace it back beyond that.

 

[Orangey]

I feel so ambiguous about the issue of abortion. If pushed to take a stance, I am pro-choice, and mainly for practical purposes. Women will always try to abort their fetuses, accepting that reality and regulating it/making it safe is the best option, imo. But am I morally OK with abortion? No, not completely. Nor would I have one myself. And I am less OK with it the further along a pregnancy goes. If someone were to conclusively discover that a fetus can feel pain or suffer at X weeks, I would reconsider being pro choice.

The bigger problem with this would seem to be the consequences for already-born children. Morally, the remove-but-don't-actively-end-the-life of a fetus seems similiar to ethical end-of-life issues, where we have terminally ill patients dying of starvation and dehydration because it is illegal for a doctor to take active steps to end that person's life, so it becomes this passive process. Remove the means to life, but don't actively end that life.

Again, not sure how I feel about that.

Intuitively I tend to agree with what you posted here. Of course, this is sans the consideration of any other philosophical or legal arguments on the matter.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Something I've read that struck me is the phrase "moment of conception," when the sperm enters the egg. The idea that "new life" is created at that moment doesn't seem true, because a fertilized egg is actually an extension of two different organisms. They grow life out of pre-existing life. Eventually, the fertilized egg might develop to have its own consciousness, but its life didn't start at its conception. If you don't try to make that distinction, you can trace it back beyond that.

The fertilized egg is a new organism formed from special parts of two other organisms. It has unique DNA. I think that makes it separate life form.

 

[professor goodstain]

The fertilized egg is a new organism formed from special parts of two other organisms. It has unique DNA. I think that makes it separate life form.

If it has unique DNA making it a seperate life form, does that qualify it as a living being.

 

[/DG/]

The anti abortionist would argue that the choice is not after realizing you're pregnant, but the choice involved in having sex.

Whenever pro-life people bring up this point, I always bring up rape. I know it's a touchy subject, but it always makes people think. What if you were raped and got pregnant? Personally, I'm pro-choice, but I would never have an abortion myself.

 

[TheLastMohican]

If it has unique DNA making it a seperate life form, does that qualify it as a living being.

That definition could be twisted given certain examples like mitochondria, but in the context of conception, I think it's sufficient.

 

[BallentineChen]

The fertilized egg is a new organism formed from special parts of two other organisms. It has unique DNA. I think that makes it separate life form.

It does make it a separate life form, but it's still derived from pre-existing life. So, does having unique DNA mean that it deserves its own argument for existence? If so, what are the implications for twins that share DNA? What about the sperm and the egg before they unite, are their existences meant to be preserved. My feeling is more that as human beings, we try to put a logical structure on topics such as abortion that determine whether something is right or wrong, where right and wrong are ultimately determined by what makes us human in the first place. And saying so doesn't mean that I try to devalue morality. I'm just trying to point out how we try to find imperfect solutions to perfect problems.