It’s been an eventful week. Two of my teen idols died. Monday was both the most depressing day of the year and Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday celebration/federal holiday. Tuesday was the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, designated as “Blog for Choice Day” by NARAL.
I don’t want to get into a long, drawn-out discussion of abortion.* I know where that can lead.
The world is not going to come to 100% agreement on abortion. However, we can come to 100% agreement on other choices, such as economic freedom, civil liberties, the right to free speech, and the right to choose to do anything else as long as it’s not harmful to anyone or in violation of their rights.
In fact, I just learned that in the 1980s, the Libertarian Party had bumper stickers saying: “Libertarians: We’re Pro-Choice on Everything.” There have also been groups such as “Libertarians for Life,” and abortion is not part of the official LP platform because of the nature of the question*. My point is that for those who think that being “pro-choice” is the most important freedom available to women, I ask what other choices, if any, they believe women should have:
- What about the choice for women to do what they want with your own money, that they earn through their own labor? With the new year, you’ve now begun working solely for the government again, and you won’t have “Tax Freedom” until May or so. You won’t be able to keep a dime of what you make between now and then– it all goes to Uncle Sam. Is that choice? Is that freedom?
- What about the women (or men) who have found that the best treatment for their terminal illness is medical marijuana? Should they be allowed to use it? Many pro-choicers are in favor of federal regulations on abortion; should states be allowed to pass laws regarding medical marijuana that go against the federal government? If yes, how do you explain that inconsistency?
- What about the choice to see democracy at work and vote to select the person who’s best to run the country, not necessarily the people who have been chosen as best by the current two-party system? What about the choice to hear other ideas besides those espoused by our current two parties? Why do current Democratic presidential candidates not wholeheartedly support allowing third parties into debates? What are they afraid of? Don’t we live in a democracy, and aren’t they pro-choice for voters?
- What about the choice to do what you want in the privacy of your own home, as long as it doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights… and even if other people may disagree with it?
- What about the choice to not hand out taxpayer subsidies to huge corporations? Isn’t that a choice that pro-choice members of Congress should also exercise, and give that money back to the people?
- Many women are close to their families. However, if one has relatives in Cuba, she can’t legally visit them. How is that pro-choice? Democrats often argue in favor of visas for family members rather than visas based on skills because they say it’s a “pro-family” position… what about those with Cuban, rather than Mexican or Central American, relatives? What about their families? What Democratic lawmakers allow people to have a complete choice in what countries they visit?
- If I live in a blue state and especially in an inner city and I want to protect myself from the violent criminals which I may find breaking into my house, I have two choices: break the law or move away. I often don’t have the choice of legally protecting myself with a firearm, even thought I might be trained in its use. This is especially critical for women, and it is more than a choice, many people would say it’s a right. Many people who would not allow this right do agree with abortion at a late stage “to protect the life of the mother.” What about the mother whose house is being broken into?
*For those who may care, here is my opinion on abortion. Personally, I don’t think abortion can be legislated at the federal level, since whether you agree or disagree with it depends almost solely on whether you think that the fetus in question is a person or not– if you do think it’s a person, you think that it has rights just as you and I do as people. If you don’t see it as a person, you think that the mother’s right to choose what to do with her body trumps anything else. These two sides pretty much can’t be reconciled as long as there is a debate over when life starts, and so a federal option either way just isn’t feasible. The current system isn’t right, either, because no matter when you think life starts, Roe vs. Wade allows for abortions to be performed up to birth, even a day before a due date, and that obviously is just not right. Babies can live on their own after five months in the womb. I think both sides take it too far, and the issue is just too divisive.
Tags: libertarians, libertarian, pro-choice, Blog for Choice Day
Roe v. Wade allowed the state nearly complete control over non-therapeutic abortions in the third trimester, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey further moved the balance of power towards the state. Some of the outrageous things states have done is to prohibit abortions of e.g. anencephalics (which have zero chance of survival and fail both neurological and viability tests of humanity).
For some values of “live” and “on their own”.
1. A great many of very early premies suffer serious brain damage, blindness, etc.
2. Without extensive and invasive medical procedures, such early premies do not survive, period. I don’t see why subjecting them to such painful interventions for the purpose of letting them have a “life” with severe physical and mental impairments is not considered child abuse. For this, society can easily spend a million dollars per, plus Medicaid for the rest of the child’s life.
A fetus first develops the brainwaves characteristic of wakefulness at about 30 weeks. I don’t think we should be paying for massive interventions before that. As for abortion, IMHO any woman who waits until 30 weeks to decide to abort an uncomplicated pregnancy is nuts!
Engineer-Poet
January 24th, 2008
“e.g. anencephalics (which have zero chance of survival and fail both neurological and viability tests of humanity).”
That is perhaps a different case, and it should be weighed whether the child would experience more pain from an abortion or from being born and allowed to die.
As far as babies born at five months– I have a friend who was born on a military base in Japan four months early (five months in the womb). She’s one of the smartest people I know. I’m not sure about what measures had to be taken to keep her alive (she was smaller than a palm), but she is extremely intelligent and doesn’t seem to have any ill effects.
It is interesting how much people are willing to spend on premature babies (and encouraging women to have, for instance, seven babies at once, guaranteeing that they’ll all be preemies with health problems), but at least some of them do turn out perfectly normal. I’m not sure how one could know or judge this before taking the extreme measures.
libertariangirl
January 25th, 2008
If what you say is true, your friend is extremely lucky. The data I found on premature survival rates (as recently as 2005!) says survival rate from 26 weeks and earlier was 54% (that’s to discharge, and does not include later deaths from complications). It also doesn’t include impairments.
All experience, including pain, occurs in the cerebral cortex. Anencephalics do not have a cerebral cortex. I do not see how they could feel pain.
I do know that the RTL position has killed children. Anencephalics would be perfect organ donors (a neural tube defect does not affect other organs) but the insistence that they are “alive” despite not having a brain means that they have to go through respiratory failure before being pronounced dead. By that time, the organs are too damaged by anoxia to be transplanted. Victims of biliary atresia and neonatal cardiac problems die also, when they might have lived (longer).
The hypocrisy over frozen blastocysts is another sore point of mine. If a child is e.g. struck by a car and suffers fatal brain damage, the parents are allowed — nay, encouraged — to donate organs and tissues both for transplant and for science. But the RTL position is that blastocysts may not be donated for either purpose if public funds are involved, and instead must be flushed down the drain. They’re just as dead, but the idea of allowing good to come from them offends the RTL community.
I guess I’m a paleo-libertarian. I’ve watched the takeover of the party by evangelicals, and I barely recognize it any more.
Engineer-Poet
January 26th, 2008
It is true; the next time I encounter my friend I’ll have to ask her about it. I didn’t realize a case like hers was so rare.
Another factor in this is the push by society to have “natural” babies, resulting in many people taking fertility drugs and having multiples. Multiples are guaranteed to be preemies, so it’s a very risky thing to do which should be discouraged. People in this situation should be urged to adopt more and put fewer babies at risk. Regulations for adoption should be loosened– there are no home visits and attorneys’ fees before someone has a biological child, are there? Why single out those who want to adopt?
I like your analogy of the organ donation and the blastocysts– I don’t see the difference regarding these, either.
libertariangirl
January 26th, 2008
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Libertarians: Pro-Choice On Everything, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
Daniel
February 21st, 2008
Hey Daniel– Just let me know what specifically you didn’t get the first time, and I’ll be happy to answer follow-up questions! — LG
libertariangirl
February 21st, 2008
Dear Engineer,
What other humans do you wish to give women a private “right” to burn to death, dismember, or poison beyond anecephalics? Jews? Gypsies? Anyone at all? In the pre-Christian era, it was fathers who typically killed unwanted children, and I suppose you would advocate restoring that right as well.
Michael Mahon
December 20th, 2008