A Libertarian Argument on Abortion

Libertarianism is based on the principle of non-aggression: no man or institution, including the government, may initiate force against another man or institution. This solid principle leads to a clear-cut set of positions for libertarians: no wars of aggression, no wealth redistribution, no substance control, and no trade restrictions, among other things.

This principle is applied to abortion by nearly every libertarian, but it is applied in different ways within the libertarian movement. One position believes that a fetus is either not alive or is committing an act of aggression against its mother, and thus that the mother is justified in using force against it. The other position believes that a fetus is alive and commits no aggression against the mother, and thus that the abortion of the fetus in the initiation of force against it. There are intermediate positions, mostly believing that abortion is largely immoral but allowing for it in extreme cases such as rape, incest, or medical emergency. However, for the purpose of this article, the two most extreme positions of allowing either for complete abortion rights (pro-choice) or the complete outlawing of abortion (pro-life) will be considered.

The pro-choice position commonly asserts that the fetus is not alive, and therefore its termination is not the same thing as killing. "Biology: Life on Earth, Sixth Edition", a high-school biology textbook from Prentice Hall, uses seven criteria to determine whether or not something is alive.

1. Living things have a complex, organized structure that consists largely of organic molecules.
2. Living things respond to stimuli from their environment.
3. Living things actively maintain their complex structure and their internal environment, a process called homeostasis.
4. Living things acquire and use materials and energy from their environment and convert them into different forms.
5. Living things grow.
6. Living things reproduce themselves, using a molecular blueprint called DNA.
7. Living things, as a whole, have the capacity to evolve.

These criteria will be addressed one-by-one to determine whether or not a fetus is alive.

1. The fetus is composed of the same cellular structure as an adult human. Even if the fetus is mere cells in size, those cells are complex enough and organized enough by themselves to meet the criteria of "organized and complex". Organic molecules make up the vast majority of the content of a fetus.
2. Fetuses are well-known to react to outside stimuli. Fetuses react to loud sounds played too near to the womb, to physical activity of the mother, and indeed from the saline solutions and cutting tools often used in abortion procedures.
3. As noted before, fetuses have the same cellular structure as adult humans and, if provided resources, will maintain that cellular structure without outside interference.
4. A fetus may not be able to actively take resources, but is most definitely able to acquire resources from its mother and use and adapt those resources.
5. The whole purpose of pregancy is to allow the fetus to grow.
6. The criterion of reproduction applies to the species as a whole, not to any one member of that species.
7. Once again, this criterion applies to the species as a whole. If one believes in evolution, then they will no doubt agree that humanity as a species evolves. In one does not believe in evolution, this criterion is irrelevant and can essentially be crossed off the list.

Clearly, the fetus is alive according to widespread scientific standards. But what if the fetus is not human? Then the killing of the fetus will have no greater significance than the killing of a plant or an animal. However, the question that must be asked is, "If the fetus is not human, what is it?" The fetus has human DNA, DNA that will allow it to reproduce later in life. The fetus is not a chimpanzee or a dog or any other animal, and it is most definitely not a plant.

So the question is settled then; a fetus is alive and human. But the fetus may simply be a piece of tissue in its mother's womb. This is not the case, however; a fetus has different genetic material than its mother and is only dependent on its mother for resources and protection, not for any other reason, showing that that the fetus is in fact an independent life form.

The fetus is therefore alive, human, and independent. Its termination would be the same as killing a human. What other defenses of abortion are there, then? The only other such defense is that the fetus somehow committed an act of aggression against its mother. But in no circumstance is this the case. Assuming consensual sex, the mother had sex with the full knowledge that pregnancy could result, sex being shorthand for sexual reproduction, after all. The principle of contract law, one of the foundations of libertarian justice, demands that because the mother has engaged in an act created, whether by nature or by God, she is obligated to follow through on the caretaking of a child.

Assuming non-consensual sex, the situation does become more confusing but not incomprehensible. Imagine a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of a rape. This woman is the victim of an unbelievably unjust, violent, and immoral act. Some would say that the woman has the right to abort the child because the pregnancy was created against her will, or the pregnancy will be a reminder of the terrible ordeal she has already endured. However, the baby has done nothing against the mother, the rapist has.

Consider this analogy: there are three countries: A, B, and C. A attacks B. B retaliates against A, but in the process must attack and completely destroy C. According to the principle of non-aggression, this is unjustifiable. C has done nothing against B, so B's treatment of C is the initiation of force and therefore immoral. Why, then, should a mother have the moral right to kill a child that has resulted from rape, especially since the act of abortion does nothing to punish or obtain payment from the criminal in the first place? At least in the analogy, B is able to say that the destruction of C is for the purpose of punishing A. But the pro-choice position has no such excuse. The fetus has committed no act of aggression against the mother, so the abortion is the initiation of force and therefore immoral.

Because the fetus is alive, human, independent, and innocent of any initiation of force, the use of abortion is tantamount to murder. This act of aggression should be immoral in the eyes of a libertarian, a member of a political ideology more driven by unshakable morals than any other.

So I have to ask: what's the holdup, libertarians?