On Jan. 21, a socially left-leaning senator introduced a bill to the Senate that would outlaw abortion. It was libertarian Rand Paul (R-KY), who dropped out of the GOP primaries Wednesday.
Approximately 58 million unborn children have died since 1973, when the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade deprived them of their status as persons. Rand’s “Life at Conception Act” seeks to define the unborn as “persons” and give them the full protection of the 14th Amendment.
Many are surprised by a libertarian advocating pro-life policy, but they misunderstand the libertarian perspective on abortion — as do many libertarians themselves. If libertarians correctly applied their principles, they would be some of the most ardent defenders of life.
Libertarianism starts with a single idea: That the only legitimate use of force is in self-defense. This is called the non-aggression principle. The role of man in society, the purpose of government, and all political policies are derived from this concept.
Pregnancy is a natural biological process, so the unborn child inside a woman cannot be considered a harm to a woman’s health, except in extreme circumstances. Since the fetus does not present an immediate threat of force to the safety of a pregnant woman, then an abortion, in most cases, cannot be in self-defense. If libertarians desire to consistently adhere to their principles, then abortion cannot be allowed based on the argument of self-defense.
Others argue that although it is not an act of self-defense, the non-aggression principle does not apply because the fetus is not fully human, and it is part of the woman’s body. The fetus is not “viable.”
But what is viability? The ability to independently sustain life outside of the womb? In that case, most toddlers, most children, most young adults, in fact, most human beings are not viable. We do not have the necessary knowledge or skills to ensure our well-being without the help of other humans. We rely on the assistance of others, just as an unborn child relies on its mother to nourish and protect it. On the other hand, if it is fully part of the woman’s body, then it should have no ability to survive without the mother at any point, which clearly is not true.
Child-rearing reduces the choices of parents. But a reduction of available opportunities does not permit an act of violence against the unborn child. Parenting requires time, money, and emotional and physical exhaustion. However, this is a voluntary commitment. In simple terms, sex is consent to sacrifice one’s choices for one’s children.
If someone consents to the possibility of parenthood through sex, then the results of any of their actions must be considered voluntary. The non-aggression principle says that all voluntary actions, and by extension the consequences of all voluntary actions are by nature non-aggressive and thus not subject to retaliatory violence.
In the case of rape, consent is never given to the reproductive act and so women are involuntarily entering into the sacrifice of motherhood.
Though defensive violence is allowed against all coercive force, there is no right to indiscriminate violence. The question that arises is against whom retaliatory violence may be used.
Aggression only allows the victim to defend themselves against the actions of the aggressor. All results of the aggressor’s actions cannot be confused as the aggressor himself.
For example, if one man pushes another man into a third party bystander, does the third party have the right to violently defend himself against the man that hit him or the man that did the pushing? Of course he may only use violence against the man that did the pushing, since the man that was pushed did not voluntarily hurt the bystander.
In the same way, the example of rape does not give the mother the right to an abortion in “self-defense” because the fetus did not harm the woman, only the sexual offender did. Why should an act of violence against a woman result in an act of violence against an unborn child?
Libertarians need to reevaluate their policies based on their principles. Libertarianism should promote an across the board pro-life ethic. Their principles cannot oppose the death penalty and foreign intervention while they simultaneously remain silent and allow the slaughter of millions of fetuses. Libertarians should follow the lead of Senator Paul and support consistently pro-life policies, starting with the abolition of abortion.