The Libertarian Dilemma on Abortion

The case of the total abortion ban in Poland and the mass protest of women around the world #BlackMonday has rekindled the debate about women's rights over the fetus they carry. The article aims to show the libertarian view on this very sensitive topic.

There are disputes in society that at first glance seem eternal and insoluble. The left and the right have been locked in a bitter trench war on all fronts for decades, and nowadays it is practically impossible for a person to take any position without irritating at least half of his fellow citizens (and often more). In most cases, we, as libertarians, manage to quickly resolve such “contentious” dilemmas by applying the principle of non-aggression and the right to private property. The flexibility and universality of these two simple methodological tools usually give us the confidence that we can take the moral and rational position, and not just repeat supporting points.

However, there are several philosophical dilemmas that make it difficult to apply the aforementioned principles and are the subject of heated debates within the libertarian community. One of them is the topic of abortion.

In this article, I will attempt to apply some of the fundamental libertarian ideas to the issue of abortion. The conclusions drawn from it should be seen more as an attempt to make a constructive contribution to the meta-debate than as libertarian doctrine. Ultimately, I could not defend these reflections and conclusions of mine with the same confidence and iron logic with which I defend the non-interference of the state in the economy. So, let's look at abortion from a libertarian perspective.

Based on the fact that a person is the sole natural owner of their own body and that everyone has a natural right to life, we must address two key components – the property rights of the mother and the right to life of the fetus.

The mother's property rights are relevant to the case, as the fetus develops inside her body for nine months.

The right to life of the fetus is important, as its survival depends on it being in its mother's womb for nine months.

The rights of the fetus

To begin, I would like to discuss two arguments that are often put forward by advocates of a woman's right to choose.

The first is that a fetus has no rights, since it is nothing more than a mass of cells. In a purely logical sense, the semantic category “mass of cells” encompasses all humans. In other words, if “masses of cells” have no rights, then that would mean that those making this argument do not believe that they have control (respectively rights) over their own bodies. Of course, this is a logical paradox – it is impossible to convince someone that you have no control over your body by using your vocal cords to do so. This makes this argument meaningless.

Ultimately, it is clear that in the absence of external intervention, this specific “mass of cells” becomes a human being. But perhaps there is a watershed—a point at which amorphous biological material becomes a human being. If so, what are the characteristics of this watershed? A number of cells accumulated? A specific stage of fetal development? A specific time elapsed since conception? I have heard many variations on the theme of “before X becomes X, the fetus is not yet a human being.” Without claiming to be my final word on the matter, none of them has managed to convince me that it rests on a rational philosophical principle. Of course, I am open to hearing new and better arguments that might influence my position. But for the moment, since I could not define a reasonable watershed beyond which a mass of cells becomes a fully-fledged human being, the only logical conclusion for me is that the human life cycle begins at the moment of conception.

The second argument is that the fetus has no rights, since it is not a fully developed human being and is completely dependent on the mother. The problem with this argument is that the dependence on the parents continues long after birth (at least until puberty). Obviously, dependence has nothing to do with the right to life. The fetus and the child have the same rights as everyone else, but they lack the physical capacity to protect them. For this reason, their parents in particular and society in general are morally obligated to act as guarantors of their rights to life and full development until adulthood. It is obvious that abortion violates these rights, since it ends the life cycle of the unborn child and eliminates the possibility of full development.

Mother's rights

Having discussed the rights of the fetus, we can move on to the second part of the dilemma – the rights of the mother. Here I would like to consider two cases – voluntary pregnancy and a conflict between the rights of the mother and the fetus.

Let's first define the terms. "Voluntary" is any pregnancy that results from a consensual sexual act.

A conflict between the rights of the mother and the fetus occurs in cases of involuntary pregnancy (e.g., rape) or in medical complications requiring a choice to be made between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus.

It is worth noting that “voluntary” does not necessarily mean “desired.” For example, it is possible to purchase a good or service voluntarily and later decide that I do not want it.
Given the right to life of the fetus, which I discussed above, we can reasonably conclude that in cases of voluntary pregnancy, the woman's preferences cannot be a moral justification for having an abortion. Since she voluntarily chose to have sex (and therefore to become pregnant), the moral responsibility to respect the right to life and development of the fetus and the child is shared between her and the father of the child (if he also participated voluntarily). Of course, they can cede this responsibility to other people who they believe will protect the child's interests better than they do after birth.

This is the place to address the issue of contraceptives, as the argument is often advanced that some pregnancies are the result of “coincidences” or “accidents.” Due to the fact that all contraceptive manufacturers explicitly inform their customers that their product does not prevent pregnancy completely, but only reduces the chance of it, becoming pregnant despite the use of contraceptives could logically not be considered anything other than voluntary. Couples using such products “take risks” at their own risk. Ultimately, the only universal contraceptive is abstinence.

Let us move on to the rare but extremely tragic cases of conflicts between the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus. Is it immoral for a woman, pregnant by her rapist, to have an abortion? Which should a woman choose – her own life or the life of her child? Here things become extremely complicated from an ethical point of view and the principle of non-aggression, the right to life and responsibility are blurred. It is obvious that a woman who has become pregnant as a result of rape or is facing a death threat due to medical complications has not made a voluntary choice and cannot be held responsible for it. At the same time, the fetus continues to have the right to life.

Therefore, at this point I believe that in these cases everything rests on the conscience of the individual and no clear moral judgment can be made. Ultimately, a person can only be moral when they have free choice.

Conclusion

I would like to emphasize again that due to the extreme complexity and sensitivity of the topic, I cannot call the conclusions I reach in this article “final”. The idea that a woman is capable of easily having an abortion and that this is perfectly acceptable makes me feel morally disgusted (see, for example, the “ Shout your abortion” campaign in the US). On the other hand, I am positive about the idea of planning exactly when to have your child so that you give it the best possible path in life.

But feelings don't matter. As always, if we want to get to the truth, it is necessary to shake off prejudices and personal preferences and follow rational methodology, regardless of the conclusions we might reach in the end.

In conclusion, I hope that the article contributes something to the public debate on this very important moral issue and becomes an occasion for many fruitful discussions.

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!