Liberty and pro-choice arguments

Abortion never struck me as a liberty issue. Fundamental ideas that inform libertarian thinking don’t pick a “side” for or against abortion, late-term or otherwise. Abortion is a random issue. But my pro-choice credentials face greater and greater scrutiny as I pal around right-libertarians and conservatives, and I’ve had to re-investigate my own decision-making process here.

I find each political side — abortion jurisprudence — wholly unconvincing. When a sperm and egg becomes “life” is so outside thousands of colloquial years of the word, there’s nothing analytic in the definition to illuminate policy choices; I don’t think medical science is going to answer the philosophical question of the concept of “life” either (“clinical death” violates what should be commonsense notions of death); etcetera. And then, of course, the pro-choice camp (which emphasizes parental choice) rarely cares about parental choice afterward, like in education, and the pro-life camp is an absurdly broad name for their legitimate concerns. The philosophy of abortion is probably interesting — the politics is a waste of time.

Here is what, I think, enforces my libertarian advocacy of choice. I am probably more radically pro-choice than most people I know, but this provides a basic defense.

If the question of whether or not life is “worth it” is a sensible question in the first place, then it is not one that can be answered a priori. Life is an inherently qualitative experience. This is clear enough by the fact that some people would rather choose to have died at age 60 after having lived to age 80, if we take their judgment as the best authority on their own life’s worth (and I do, and I think we should). Therefore, in advance, its not knowable if a person’s life will be worth it. People generally do enjoy living (more than they would otherwise?); this might not be the case if, for instance, the Nazis won and we all were born in camps. This is an accidental property of the current world. We live in a generally worthwhile time period, suggesting life is generally going to be determined to be worth it by each individual.

Since the worth of life is not a priori, the best guess in advance is that from local knowledge. Parents have the most local knowledge about the future of their child’s immediate life, before it gets unpredictable and the knowledge gets divided by millions of individuals who will impact their life and also understand ongoing trends. Therefore, parents are the best option to make a judgment call about whether or not their child’s life will be worth it — if they can care for it, if they will have a genetic problem, etc. Not politicians. Not voters. Not interest groups concerned with in utero life in the abstract.

Thus, parental choice.

It’s been said this is an “anti-human” argument. Lots of us came from lower income or impoverished households, myself included. Our lives are still found worthwhile. Why strawman, as if we’re in countries with terrible childhood obesity, malnutrition, drug addiction, gang violence?

It’s true that in general life is found to be worthwhile. But there’s no Leibniz-like principle that it must be. Nor does the aggregate data that people do, often, qualify life as worth living, mean that random individuals overcome parental ownership of the best localized knowledge.

This, I think, is a libertarian argument for choice. It depends on the point that abortion is a unique sort of event — we’re not talking about an old man’s caretaker, who must have the best local knowledge about whether or not we should pull the plug. The question need not arise about who makes important choices once someone is cognizant and autonomous. The argument rides on the point that there’s a vacuum in decision-making autonomy for fetuses by their very intrinsic nature, and we have to make proxy choices in advance.

We give parents plenty of other choices by law. When we are debating potential- or possible-beings still in the womb, before our language game definitively identifies them as “alive,” choice should default to the parents, and I should have no right to the woman’s body to make choices for her about a possible-being I will never see, feed, care for or otherwise worry about except to force the woman to take care of it for nearly two decades.

17 thoughts on “Liberty and pro-choice arguments

  1. I find your post well-argued, and while you touched on the rhetorical aspect of the debate, it seems as though you are sidestepping the issue of life. If you found an argument – not a “language game” – that persuaded you that a child in utero is no less “alive” than you and me, and therefore presumably worthy of protection from being killed, would it not be logical for third parties to prevent such killings?

    I understand that third parties (that is, not the parents or child) have no “interest” in the act. We do not have to care for “it” for two decades, as you say. But do we not have a moral interest, indeed a moral duty, to protect the vulnerable?

    • Thank you Tyler.

      I understand your question. In general, I would feel a moral duty to protect an innocent living human from attack if I were capable of intervention. Therefore, if I understood a fetus to be a living human, I should feel a moral duty to protect it.

      And yet, it doesn’t seem so simple. Because my “protection” of the fetus is different than my protection of the grown human innocent. I would intervene to protect the grown man if I understood the decision-making process of the assailant to be flawed, e.g., someone getting mugged. But the decision-making process of abortion is different — I can know, possibly, in individual cases. But I can’t know a priori to make a policy proposal.

      I might feel a moral interest or duty in specific cases, if I accepted the premise that the fetus was human life of the same quality of a grown adult. But it wouldn’t apply in abstract.

    • If anything, a fetus might be a human life of greater quality than that of a grown adult, since it has more potential life ahead of it. Moreover, the killing of it has greater effect: To kill all nonagenarians would have little effect on posterity, but to kill all fetuses would render humanity extinct in a single generation.

    • 1) The entire point of this essay was how we can’t place value judgments a priori on life in the abstract. You are as likely to be wrong as you are to be right.
      2) That’s not a libertarian concern, and so I don’t see any bearing here. Similarly, “humans generally eat meat, so birthing more humans means more meat consumption” would be a negative concern for vegetarians, but has no bearing here.

  2. The common-sense point for the beginning of human life used to be the “quickening” — the point at which the mother could feel the child kick in her womb. Once the fetus is moving, and its movements are big enough to feel, it is definitely alive and capable of sensation. One has to construct convoluted arguments if one wishes to deny that it deserves any sort of sympathy or has any sort of interests at that point.

    • This “quickening” is interesting, but from a little research it doesn’t seem to have done what you thought it did.

      How much sympathy? Enough for you to write a comment on a blog post? Yes. Enough to vote for policies about its fate? Enough that you would personally raise it, once born? Enough that you’ll contribute a percentage of your income each month, to organizations that fight on one side of the aisle? How much, a priori, for this possible- or potential-being?
      And if you insist it deserves some sort of sympathy, enough to compel action that it sees its way through to birth and life, what action are you taking now to ensure that similar micro-humans 12 inches on the other side of the womb are capable of living right now in the present? That is, if they deserve sympathy as well.

      Centipedes have interests; what do you mean?

    • Centipedes aren’t human. So, even if they have interests, they’re not persons, by some quite reasonable accounts.
      Many ethical systems care greatly about the welfare of humans, and much less about the welfare of non-humans. I would suggest this is quite reasonable. This makes it reasonable to grant a right to life to a fetus after it shows biological evidence of sentience.
      Note, I’m only saying this is reasonable. It’s more reasonable, in my opinion, than the idea that there should be a right to kill a baby that is near the point of birth, and obviously capable of life outside the womb, if we regard the taking of the life of a new-born baby as murder. That position strikes me as arbitrary to the point of absurdity.

    • To focus on a single point: there is no isolated “right to life” to a fetus, in the same negative-rights way of an adult.
      You can impose your feelings on the rest of the population, and criminalize abortion based on a fetal right to life. Now that you’ve done that, the potential-beings are born, they’re outside the womb. A lot of them will have good lives, and plenty will have terrible lives. How will you ensure that this “right to life” is meaningful, unless you’re completely unsympathetic to the outcomes of their lives you’ve fought to secure?
      If you care only about a “right to life,” I will assume you are content with a mother dumping her baby in the dumpster a week after birth. She didn’t murder it. She just didn’t care for it. After all, it’s only about guaranteeing “a life” rather than anything with quality. If you are not content with that outcome, what are you doing to ensure infants in general live quality lives after birth right now?

    • There is no “right to life” at all, whether for fetuses or full-grown adults, except what what the rulers or people of a given polity choose to designate as such. When it comes to these designated rights, some are more reasonable than others.

    • How do you plan on enforcing that in a free market legal system where half the population disagrees with you?

  3. My biggest problem with this issue is the taxpayer money involved in the process and the for profit aspect of the abortion industry. As a Christian , I have other issues but will keep them out of this discussion.

    I have been curious about this topic for sometime now, as it is complicated. Doing some research in the past indicated that most of the money the federal government gave to planned parenthood was returned to mostly Democratic politicians. (Open secrets).

    This led me to believe that there were ulterior motives for politicians supporting the abortion industry rather tha altruism. The the money for baby parts angle is exposed and the process of doing so made public.

    I like to follow the money to the truth. Whoever profits from something is usually irs biggest fan. When we start selling baby parts for profit, we have crossed a rubicon, that makes me very uncomfortable.

  4. I used to be a “big tent” thinker on this issue also. I was a politically active libertarian, and it didn’t pay to piss off Republicans immigrants who saw Liberty mainly from one side. But now I believe there really is no valid anti-choice position within libertarianism. We would all agree that what one does with one’s own body is not subject to state action. The flawed get-around on this for abortion is to call a fetus “life,” meaning “potentially independent human life” thus justifying state intervention. This is merely a jesuitical exercise devoid of common sense, the warping of useful words and concepts to advance an agenda. Every creature in nature, from an amoeba to a toad to a tiger to a Tasmanian (but excluding an anti-abortionist) knows the basic difference between 1 and 2. Why? Because when an entity meets one or more other entities, a decision among four actions (ignore it, run, eat it, screw it) must be made, and acted upon. Preferably: fast. Because the number, type, and proximity of entity/entities affects this decision, every amoeba, toad (etc.) is able to make a judgment quickly and fairly accurately. Except for certain humans whose stem-brain perceptions are cerebrally clouded to the point of “seeing” two where there is only one. How would we judge the competency of a scientist asked to count bacterium under a slide, who says “well, I only SEE five, but there are trillions and trillions because they all have the potential to divide.” Sorry, a pot-bellied human with long hair is only ONE human. A human with rights. A human whose own potential we ought to care more about than a potential human’s potential, and whose rights we are bound to respect.

    Another libertarian axiom that bears on this in a consequentialist way: no adult human has a right to live at another’s expense. Some would argue that (real = born = independently living) children have no such right either, but clearly at some point of maturation, a person unable to earn their daily rice bowl must be dependent on charity, not on confiscation. So where do such hapless people come from? From parents lacking the emotional and/or financial resources to properly socialize their children – exactly those who should have had an abortion. If you want a world of self-sustaining humans, you should be arguing for abortion as a cultural norm, not opposing it.

Leave a Reply to Fatty Arbuckle Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s