Point/Counter Point of the Month
Abortion: Pro-Life Versus Pro-Choice
Amanda Carey and Anon
Issue date: 1/24/10 Section: News and Opinion
|
Abortion: Pro-life
Some say that it is impossible to be libertarian and pro-life; that in fact, not being pro-choice goes against the libertarian ideal of maximum individual liberty. Libertarianism holds that government should be limited to the functions of defense, courts, and police; only individual freedom is compatible with human nature; and rights need the utmost protection.
So are pro-life libertarians compromising on those values? In a word: no. Even Rep. Ron Paul once said, "Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual."
First of all, being pro-life doesn't necessarily mean being in favor of federal law making abortion illegal. One acceptable option is to let the issue go to the states, and allow citizens to vote. But the question still remains, how can any libertarian in good conscience not allow a woman her "right" to choose?
As with every debate about abortion, it always goes back to the concept and definition of life. Is a fetus a life? Some argue that yes, life begins at conception. Others say life begins at birth. The scientific and intellectual communities are in many ways, split down the middle.
But the thing one needs to consider is that while fetuses can't necessarily reason, neither can a baby who is one day old. Pro-choice and pro-lifers agree that once a baby is born, killing it or letting it die is murder. So what makes a newborn baby so different and worthy of life when literally one minute prior, it was still inside its mother's womb? Does that one minute really make that much of a difference?
Some might say yes because after a baby is born it is no longer dependent on its mother for its life to be sustained. But a newborn baby IS dependent on its mother (or at least another guardian) to stay alive. It cannot feed itself, clothe itself, or protect itself. That baby is completely defenseless, just like it was prenatally.
The "ability to reason" argument is a common one for those who advocate that fetuses aren't persons. Yet in America, the mentally incapacitated are still protected of their right to life. So why isn't a fetus, whose mental incapacitation is only temporary?
Furthermore, libertarians hold the sanctity of life above all else. Along with that is the belief that the right to life applies equally to all human beings. That means, among other things, that all human beings have the right to live without the threat of force or aggression. That right transcends all political and legal systems; it exists even in the state of nature, and is a part of man's constitution of being, which is acquired at conception.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
Liss
posted 1/25/10 @ 2:15 PM AST
A woman should be able to decide herself.
Jessica
posted 1/25/10 @ 4:50 PM AST
A woman gets to decide a lot of things. She can decide to take The Pill, to use a condom, to read the instructions on the condom box that declare this method is not 100% safe, to have that fourth drink, to go home with that guy at the bar, to have sex during the time of month she knows she is most likely to get pregnant, etc. (Continued…)
Brandon
posted 1/26/10 @ 1:11 PM AST
While it is true that many decisions were made before a pregnancy, one must also ask one's self what life would be like for the child given the circumstances. (Continued…)
Post a Comment