If there is one issue that divides libertarians, and even some anarchists, it is the issue of abortion. It is, after all, a very serious topic for individuals, and people on both sides are incredibly passionate about their position. Pro-life individuals correctly declare that the unborn child is a human life, and is therefore entitled to their natural right to life. They view abortion as a violation of the unborn’s right to life, and is therefore a violation of the non-aggression principle (NAP). Pro-choice individuals, conversely, correctly declare that the pregnant individual’s body is their own property, and therefore has full authority and dominion over it. They view abortion as an individual exercising property right over their own body. Objectively, the question must be answered as to who is correct, and this must be done logically, without emotion, and based solely on natural law and ethics.
We first must establish what constitutes a human life. Logic dictates that if human death is defined as the cessation of vital signs (e.g. heartbeat and brain function), then the commencement of life must be its opposite. An unborn child’s vitals start at around 6 weeks of gestational age, meaning at this point, logically speaking, life has begun. Those on the pro-life side will agree with this, and will therefore conclude that as it is a human life at 6 weeks gestational age, it is entitled to its natural right to life. This is not the entire story, however.
If life is a natural right, and life begins in utero, how can any other position be logically reconciled against this very plain and simple fact? We must dive deeper and explore the validity of the pregnant individual’s property rights. The libertarian and anarchist position on body autonomy is not in dispute. One’s body and labor is their own property. This simple notion is what easily explains how slavery is a violation of natural law. It has led to the creation of the simple mantra that “Nothing that requires the labor of others is a right,” which is often cited when challenging socialist policies such as universal healthcare and the welfare state generally. It is equally as valid of a position as what was previously stated regarding the beginning of life.
Property ownership gives total and absolute sovereignty to the property owner. This makes it justifiable under natural law for a property owner to expel any unwanted persons from their property, and use force or deadly force against trespassers if necessary. Likewise, it is also justifiable for an individual to use force or deadly force against an attacker to defend themselves from harm. In all things, the property owner is the chief sovereign within those property lines. It will invariably be argued that a property owner may not kill an individual on their property if they were not given notice and a chance to leave, and this is absolutely correct; however, an unborn child has no ability to vacate the womb. It therefore must be concluded that as property owner, the pregnant individual has the right to expel the unborn child from their womb, even though it results in their death. This is ALSO not the entire story, though.
It appears we have arrived at an impasse. If the unborn child has a natural right to live, and the pregnant individual has the natural right to expel the unborn child from their body, where does the argument go from here? We must now explore logical and ethical tests to reach a sound conclusion.
It is commonly argued by many on the pro-life side that because the fetus is innocent of any wrongdoing, and is not in utero by its own choice, ending its life is unethical, immoral, and a violation of the NAP and natural law. The argument is also made that because the pregnant individual voluntarily chose to have sex, they are therefore bound to carry the unborn child to term. Let us test this using an extreme scenario.
Assume your brother, Brad, is terminally ill, and it is a matter of objective fact that you are the only person on the planet that can care for him. Should anyone else try, despite their best efforts, Brad will die. He is your family, and you voluntarily choose to bring him into your home, and provide him the care that he needs. The question, then, is do you have the right to change your mind? Pro-life individuals will say no. After all, you voluntarily chose to bring Brad in and provide him care, and since he has the right to live, your cessation of care will violate that right. But what happened to the mantra that “Nothing that requires the labor of others is a right?” In truth, Brad is not entitled to your labor, despite the objective fact that his very life depends on it. From a natural law perspective, you have the right to change your mind.
But what of the ethical implications? Well, in order to ensure your compliance, pro-life statists will have the state threaten violence against you if you fail to comply and continue care. The relationship of voluntary caregiver/patient has thus been transformed into a master/slave relationship. You have become a slave to Brad, and he has become your master. This is the exact same relationship that exists when the state bans abortion; the pregnant individual has become a slave to their unborn child. It is, therefore, unethical to force a pregnant individual to carry their unborn child to term. The logical conclusion of this unethical act means that should the pregnant individual get an abortion, violence will be invoked against them, up to and including deadly force. No counter argument can be logically made to suggest that this conclusion is in any way ethical.
Take careful note of the language used in the previous paragraph. It concludes that it is unethical to use the state’s monopoly on violence to coerce a pregnant individual to carry their unborn child to term. There is another aspect of this that has yet to be mentioned: the anarchist aspect.
In a prior essay entitled Justice in Anarchy (see Highlights tab), I lay out how using violence and coercion against a person objectively guilty of a crime still violates their rights. I posit that the best way to handle genuine criminals without violating their rights is through societal ostracization, even in cases of cold-blooded murder. This means that in an anarchist society, the same ostracization techniques are perfectly valid in cases of abortion beyond what that culture views as the threshold for acceptability. There may be plenty of pro-life anarchist societies that will ostracize a person for getting an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. There may likewise be plenty of pro-choice anarchist societies that will view abortion as that person’s right.
Realistically, however, it is far more likely that in any anarchist society, the issue of abortion will become one of the biggest privacy issues regardless of cultural beliefs. People who get abortions will not publicly advertise the fact that they received one (or multiple), and therefore no ostracization will take place. Some doctors may refuse to perform abortions, while others will take no issue in doing so. In short, abortion in an anarchist society will likely be just as prevalent as it is today, but due to the absence of the political system, the discourse of the topic will seldom take place outside the confidential bounds of doctor and patient, and the private discussions between intimate partners.
I grew up strictly pro-life, but since becoming an anarchist, I have changed my view to be pro-choice. Because every individual has full sovereignty and authority over their own bodies, it is immoral and unethical to force them to do anything they do not wish to do, including carrying a child to term. Ostracization is a valid alternative, however, it will likely never take place due to people’s individual desire for privacy in all medical issues. Maybe a better label for this is being pro-mind-your-own-business.
I will never hide my posts behind a Subscription on X. Please consider donating.
₿TC ⚡️ – AncapAir@walletofsatoshi.com
Bitcoin – bc1q3m2gh3cfmp7hc99eak7qqgxnt9stxfletfe8v6
Ethereum – 0xd7C435F772949052CB717162bE1C71989F6917d5
Leave A Comment