The double-edge sword of abortion
The Beagle Scout has a post about how libertarians should view abortion. It’s interesting and well thought-out. I was also quite surprised since I actually asked a libertarian that was running in my district about his views on abortion. Needless to say, I didn’t agree with him.
Now that I have been added to the Top Conservative On Twitter, I want to be a bit more pro-active about the topics that come up. Earlier this week, @TeamRonMiller posted the article linked above. I wanted to post my thoughts on it. I’ve always seen abortion as a double-edge sword. If the “pro-choice” camp wants to label that life begins at birth, at what point, then, is birth considered? Is it after it exists the vaginal canal? Or perhaps after it’s first breath? What about the umbilical cord? Is it okay to abort a fetus as long as the umbilical cord isn’t cut?
Let’s say it’s the latter, since the “pro-choice” camp says that the fetus is a parasite since it gains sustenance from its host. How should sustenance be defined? Couldn’t you say that children under the age of 18 require sustenance from their hosts? In fact, if the host does not provide for food and shelter, the host can be arrested for fetus — I mean child — endangerment. Why don’t we give these hosts the choice to terminate their parasites post-birth? After all, don’t we want people to have the right to choose?
Okay, so the umbilical cord is too far. How about the first breath? Most states say that life begins when oxygen is present in the lungs. But why the lungs? What about the blood? Aren’t we saying that oxygen is an important aspect of life and therefore is needed to define it? What about people who are paralised and require a breathing machine? Should their lives be allowed to be terminated because they cannot breath on their own?
I believe the only logical way to avoid these arguments is to say that life must begin at conception. Failure to do so only cheapens the lives of others. But the problem ultimately comes from social engineering.
In order to sway the public, pro-abortion was changed to “pro-choice”. After all, who would want to deny people the right to choose something? The fact is that there are already laws on the books that take choice away from people. For example, people cannot choose to end someone’s life. You cannot choose to drive drunk. You cannot choose you cheat on your exams. You would face punishment if you chose to do any of those things.
The truth is that verbal engineering is always easier than political engineering. It’s easier to sway the public with nice words (Ahhem — Obama) than it is to actually bring change (Ahhem — Obama).
I wish I could find the quote. Some one earlier this month said that as soon as people realize that pregnancy is the logical conclusion of sex, Planned Parenthood would be out of business.
So true.
If you happen to know the source of the quote, please leave a comment below.
LJM
January 1st, 2009 at 11:55 pm #
Many libertarians buy into the mother’s womb as her property, with eviction rights against any child who should somehow find itself in there. Of course, once you ask them how exactly does that varmint child sneak into her womb anyhow the whole theory comes crashing down. Acts bring responsibilities. The act of having sex inevitably brings the responsibility of giving birth to any child who results.
I think that many libertarians reject classical liberalism for a sophomoric neo-libertarianism based on an ideology of rebellion against all authority. This would explain why some atheist libertarians reject God as well as any moral guidelines they trace back to Christianity and Judaism. It would also explain why some of them are so dead set against social conservatives in the Republican party.