Most Libertarians who take a Pro-Life stance adhere to the non-aggression principle. Of these Pro-Life Libertarians, their arguments can be roughly divided into deontological and consequentalist categories – that is, obligations based on moral duties, versus the notion that the morality of an action can be judged solely by its consequences. One question that can be asked is whether the justification for deontological libertarianism applies to fetuses. As far as I can tell, the main debate within the libertarian school of thought regarding abortion presumes as a given that the fetus is a person to which the non-agression principle applies. While for a non-Libertarian, that presumption alone is sufficient to conclude that abortion is wrong, that is not necessarily the case for Libertarians. Specifically, Libertarians are very focused on the property rights of the mother in her body as well. A common claim by Libertarian proponents of abortion is that the fetus has no positive rights to be sustained against the will of the mother. The mother has the right to "evict" the fetus from her body, even if the consequence of that eviction is the fetus's death. On the other side of the aisle, it is argued that the action of the mother is directly resulting in the death of the fetus, who has no chance of survival outside the womb, and the mother is fully aware of this. If you accept a fetus as human, the mother would be violating its rights by doing something that directly results in its death. It seems that in this situation, if one accepts the fetus as a human, the rights of either the mother or the child will inevitably be violated. The question then becomes whether the mother has or does not have an obligation to continue to allow her body to be used to sustain the life of the fetus. The analogy often cited is of a person finding himself strapped to a kidney machine connect to the body of another. He is told that he would have to continue to be strapped to the machine for 9 months, for otherwise the other person would surely die. Absent prior contractual commitments, the first person is not obligated to subjugate himself to the second, even at the cost of the second person's life. (Note that none of this has bearing on whether these actions are morally right, which is a separate question on which people may differ. The entire point, from a libertarian perspective, is that the abortion is allowed, as the mother would be the exclusive owner of her own body.) However, Pro-Life Libertarians see this as analogy as very weak, drawing a parallel between it and the argument for slave contracts. As Abraham Lincoln put it, "Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail." The flaw in the argument is that (except in cases of rape or other involuntary impregnation) it is the mother's fault that the baby is in her body. It is her fault that there is a dependent human being inside her, and she thus has the moral duty to sustain it while it requires her aid to live. If the mother doesn't want this duty, she can use birth control (which is a calculated risk, giving her access to sexual pleasure while still leaving a chance of having to deal with pregnancy), sterilize herself, or just not have sex. The fact is that these women want to have fun and pleasure without having to deal with the moral consequences of their actions. Whether there is anything wrong with having casual sex is besides the point here – but it is possible to do it and virtually eliminate the possibility of pregnancy. Since it is possible to prevent pregnancy from sex, there can be no excuse for baby murder from unwanted pregnancy. In rebuttal, Pro-Choice proponents argue that the risk of pregnancy cannot pragmatically be eliminated entirely. A woman has had her tubes tied and has sex with a man who has been snipped. For reasons of paranoia the man is wearing a condom anyways, and the woman is still taking birth control pills. Aside from not having sex, all precautions have been taken to the rational point, and a few steps beyond that. However, somehow, one of the man's swimmers get out and manage to break through the condom, and somehow manages to impregnate the woman. Is the woman morally responsible for the child? In response, Pro-Life proponents sometimes make the argument that, nevertheless, it's well within her power to abstain from sex, all she sacrifices is pleasure. It is certainly very reasonable to assume that one won't get pregnant having taken so many precautions, but there is still only one 100% certain method not to get pregnant, and everyone knows that. Its like any other risky activity. For instance, someone may really enjoy flying an airplane. He takes many precautions in term of route choice, legal regulations, and speed/safety restrictions, etc, but if he crashes into a house it's still his liability for the damage. It doesn't make him some kind of reckless bad person but its still his responsibility when his precautions aren't enough. Another analogy the Pro-Choice side often draws is a hotel owner being entitled to evict a non-paying guest, even if they knew that such eviction would result in the guest's death (such as, for example, during a snowstorm). In rebuttal to this, Pro-Life proponents emphasize the fact that abortion consistently and predictably results in the death of the fetus 100% of the time, which exposes one weakness in the "eviction" analogy. It's as if a person could set a train of events into action, with the full knowledge and absolute certainty that it would result in the death of another human being, but be absolved of all guilt or blame because they had only nudged the first domino. Those who argue from deontological perspective say that if a woman has sex consensually and gets pregnant, she is 100% responsible for her body being pregnant. And that it's her moral duty to keep the baby inside her alive for the same reason that I would be liable for reparations if I deliberately set fire to your house without your permission. In rebuttal to this, Pro-Choice proponents try to make the argument that consent to sex does not carry with it an obligation or agreement to pregnancy. And furthermore, that a woman who got pregnant didn't violate anyone's rights, so she is not liable for damages. One common part of the argument is the claim that, if it wasn't for the mother, the fetus wouldn't exist at all, and the fetus isn't any worse off if it had not been for the totality of the woman's actions, for in that case the fetus wouldn't exist at all. In other words, the abortion simply undoes the consequence of the original action. Pro-Life proponents argue in return that that the woman's giving life does not entitle her to take it. This is basically part of the "it's the mother's fault the fetus is there" counterargument. It is certainly not an unquestionable "good" to create a new person, and it is always done without permission. No one asked the fetus for permission to do both of those things to it. You cannot do either without permission and consider yourself ethical. Some Pro-choicers criticize this argument by pointing out that it would also seem to imply that procreation is unethical. If I find you unconscious and bleeding heavily, very close to certain death from blood loss, do you think it would be unethical of me to bind your wounds without your permission? And if I do save your life, does that then entitle me to take it back any time I feel like it? After all, it was my actions that gave you life, so I would essentially just be undoing my prior actions. Some Pro-Choicers try to point to the concept of agency, to draw a distinction between fetus and adult. But one abundantly apparent weakness with this argument is that very small children do not have agency either. (And neither do some elderly people with severely impaired cognitive function) Pro-Choice Libertarians argue that you can remove anything from your own body, even if it's another person. One potential counterargument to this is that there's nothing clear that it's all just her body, in this situation. After all, the two beings are naturally and biologically connected. The fetus relies temporarily on the mother's body for survival. Some would say this isn't a conventional case of absolute bodily rights. Stated in different words, it's not entirely her body. An analogy could be made to easements in the field of real estate, where you may be the legal owner of a property, but it comes with certain legal restrictions and obligations, such as right of way.
What difference does it make .. the whole argument is based on an assumed premise fallacy - that the zygote is a living human. The other problem is that the post ignores one of the main arguments that a true Libertarian would use. The Constitutional protection extends only citizens and a fetus is not a citizen.
You are correct but I didn't care enough to even read the whole article and won't until he admits HE did NOT write that.....I think it's funny that he thought he could pass that off as his own...
A true libertarian would never accept the government being involved in a woman's right to her own body.
