Liberty and Abortion

One of the things that I really appreciate about the liberty movement is that, despite the wide diversity of opinions and positions that its supporters take, it seems to have fostered a culture in which its advocates can usually address their differences rational, respectful, and civilized discussion. As so much of the American political conversation takes the form of people talking past each other and scoring cheap publicity points, this is often quite refreshing.

However, there is one issue that seems to be an exception to this rule: abortion. While some libertarians see it as a fundamental liberty issue that should not be regulated or prohibited at all, others see abortion as the extinguishing of a rights-bearing human life that is morally equivalent to murdering a child or adult. After having been witness to a number of these contentious, internecine arguments in which both parties fail to resolve anything and end up bearing grudges, I figured it might be useful to unpack what I perceive to be the source of the extreme tension that underlies the libertarian abortion debate.

People on both sides of the debate usually agree with the fundamental starting premise that human beings have inalienable natural rights, including the right to life. As such, the core of their disagreement stems from the fact that they view what it means to be human in a fundamentally different way.

Pro-lifers, I’ve noticed, generally subscribe to a position of mind-body dualism. They believe that human beings have a soul or essence of some kind that is fundamentally separate from the body, which is the source of one’s humanness, and thus one’s rights. This belief leads to a binary view of humanness – either a body has a discrete soul and is thus entitled to the full panoply of rights, or a body lacks a soul and has no rights. Thus, for the liberty movement’s pro-lifers, if the soul is present in the human being at the moment of conception, killing a fetus is the moral equivalent of murder, which violates the basic libertarian principle of non-aggression.

Pro-choice libertarians, on the other hand, tend to reject mind-body dualism in favor of a “spectrum of consciousness” model, in which levels of consciousness shade into one another, from the very low level embodied in a stalk of grass, to the very complex cognition of an adult human being (an interesting version of this viewpoint on consciousness and being can be found in Doug Hofstadter’s I am a Strange Loop). In this way of viewing the world, there is no sharp dividing line between the human who is entitled to full rights and the non-human that is entitled to no rights with in the “mind-body dualism” model. Instead, the amount of consideration a particular being should rightfully be given is dependent upon their level of consciousness. As such, as an early-stage fetus has the level of consciousness development of a plankton, it can be validly argued from this perspective that the rights of the fully developed mother includes the right to morally terminate a pregnancy up to a certain contestable point. This is not to say that people with this world-view can’t be against abortion as well; however, to be morally consistent, such people would have to be vegetarians as well, since killing a chicken is the moral equivalent to killing a fetus within this philosophical framework.

Given these fundamentally different perspectives on the nature of the universe, it is easy to see how libertarians often talk past each other on the abortion issue. To mind-body dualists, the pro-choice assertion of the mother’s rights seems ludicrous, since no-one has the right to end another human’s life. Conversely, the pro-life cries of “murderer” ring hollow to those of the “spectrum of consciousness” persuasion, since, to them, an early-stage abortion is the moral equivalent of eating a shrimp cocktail. As a result of this enormous philosophical chasm, it has been exceedingly difficult to have a meaningful discussion about the place of abortion within the liberty movement. Nonetheless, it is an important issue to wrangle with, and I hope that, by openly acknowledging the philosophical roots of our positions, we might begin to have the same sorts of productive discussions and disagreements that we are able to manage on so many other issues.

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Commentary

3 responses to “Liberty and Abortion

  1. Great post, Matt. I’d like to add this concept to the debate. Modern science could now clone a new you from one of your cells, given enough time and money. So what I want to know is, if I bite this hangnail in front of me, is it murder, since I destroyed a potential new person? Or is it suicide? One more argument for vegetarianism, I suppose.

  2. Given these fundamentally different perspectives on the nature of the universe, it is easy to see how libertarians often talk past each other on the abortion issue.

  3. Austin Hook

    Those of us who believe in a spectrum of consciousness can also be against abortion, in this way: Human life is so important that it behooves us to take a stand even to the very frontiers as to what a human life means. It’s the classical slippery slope problem. Still I have a graduated attitude to abortion.
    1) Personally I oppose it at any stage.
    2) However there are many things that cannot successfully be legislated against. Probably very early abortion is one of them. If abortion is made illegal at all levels there will be too much underground abortion activity, and much danger to the health of the potential mother. We fool ourselves to think that it is always sufficient to pass a law against something. There are many things that are unethical that we do more harm than good if we try to legislate against. We often to a terrible disservice to society to just pass laws against things. We must be more flexible. Criminalizing doctors and women must be considered a great harm as well.
    3) Therefor, in law, we have to be more forgiving. We may have to legally allow some opportunity for early abortion, at the same time as opposing it ethically. However, that means, for due respect to human life, we have a tremendous burden on all of us to make sure that support services and encouragement for potential mothers is overwhelmingly positive. To be negligent in this area, both ordinary advocates for the sanctity of human life, as well as body-soul dualists or those with other religious reasons for absolute opposition to abortion, are virtually as guilty as those who perform abortions, if they do not also advocate and work for maximum positive social support for potential mothers. This will also prevent abortions, and that is the real and only measure of success. The “crime” of not being maximally supportive to mothers is as widespread as any actual abortion activity. This perspective illuminates the way forward.

Leave a 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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s