Abortion Libertarian

Libertarians and Abortion 1

Libertarianism, Abortion, and Natural Rights

James Dyer

Communication 110

Professor Henley

3/26/2013


Libertarianism, Abortion, and Natural Rights

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views

on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to

each person for their conscientious consideration” (Kane & Evans, 2012). This is the official

policy of the Libertarian party regarding abortion- but in truth, the issue of abortion is one of

great complexity, and the preceding blanket statement reflects the wide range of opinions within

the party. Libertarians from all walks of life struggle to reconcile their beliefs about abortion

with their political ideology. Broadly, we can find two overarching trains of thought regarding

abortion within the Libertarian Party. So-called “consequentialists” believe that some

government infringement upon the rights of the citizens is necessary to maintain a greater

society; thus, consequentialist libertarians tend to be more supportive of anti-abortion legislation.

Conversely, most “natural rights” advocates hold that any force infringing upon natural freedoms

is inherently immoral. As such, the holders of this viewpoint subscribe only to the most limited

governmental interference in their lives. Therefore, these advocates tend to uphold the rights of

individuals to choose abortion (Lawler, P.A, 2002).

In many ways, it appears to be a paradox; how can advocates of an extremely limited

government propose that the government should regulate and in some cases infringe upon a

woman’s “natural right” to privacy? Frankly, consequentialists do not shape their libertarian

ideology solely on the premise of natural rights; they contend that a woman does not have the

natural right to abort her child. Consequentialist libertarian thought might be best understood as

one of the current political right wing. To be clear, it is important to note that both

consequentialists and natural rights advocates do not explicitly classify themselves under those

ideologies; rather, they apply tenets of those ideologies to specific issues. If we look back to the


opening statement of this essay, we are reminded that many of the most prominent figures in the

party are at odds with the “official” party doctrine. Take, for example, Dr. Ron Paul- a staunch

advocate of natural rights, yet a firm consequentialist in his stance on abortion. In the political

science journal Reason, Brian Doherty writes, “The obstetrician's [Ron Paul] belief that abortion

is murder and thus prohibitable at the state level (though not federally) is a deal breaker for many

liberals” (Doherty, 2012, p. 32). Indeed, for many liberal libertarians (those who are more likely

to stick to the natural-rights approach), Dr. Ron Paul’s support for government restriction on

abortion may seem counter-intuitive given his limited-government record. In fact, Dr. Ron Paul

and his son Rand have been key advocates in trying to overturn the historic Roe v. Wade abortion

decision, arguing that the government should not permit abortions. Not surprisingly, many

libertarians see this decision as a digression from orthodox libertarian principles.

Furthermore, a lesser-known group called “Libertarians 4 Life” is attempting to reconcile

libertarian principles and anti-abortion views. The group takes an absolutist stance regarding

abortion by asserting that it is a moral responsibility to oppose abortion through governmental

action because it is in their judgment an act equivalent to murder. In their view, abortion is an act

of aggression on the natural right of a fetus, especially a viable one, to its impending life outside

of the womb. True to libertarian thought, the group holds that the government ought not to

aggress the rights of the people; therefore, we can infer that groups like “Libertarians 4 Life” do

not consider abortion to be a natural right. Like-minded libertarians use this approach to

advocate for a limited government while simultaneously upholding a moral standard against

what is in their view a homicide. For reference, pro-life libertarian Ramesh Ponnuru writes in

support of outlawing abortion in The National Review. Ponnuru argues, “You were once an

embryonic human person. To kill that embryonic person would have been to kill you-an unjust


act then, as it would be now” (Ponnuru, 2002, p.36). Ponnuru sums up this groups’ viewpoint

quite well; it would seem “Libertarians 4 Life” and like-minded thinkers ultimately wish to

uphold the natural rights of the precious unborn, and in doing so, they concede to the intrusion of

government; in this way, we can see how consequentialist principles often overpower “natural-

rights” principles within the libertarian circuit.

Lately, one might conclude that the majority of libertarians are anti-abortionists. While

media coverage has focused largely on players like Ron Paul and Bob Barr, there are many

important figures within the party that are decidedly pro-choice. For example, Gary Johnson is a

firm believer in the non-aggression principles of libertarianism. The difference between Johnson

and Dr. Paul is that Johnson applies non-aggression to nearly all walks of life; by prohibiting

abortion, the government is essentially aggressing the freedom and autonomy of those it

governs. To be clear, Johnson and his advocates believe that abortion is indeed a natural right.

Writing for The American Conservative, James W. Antle III analyzes the Republican Party’s

reaction to Johnson’s position, stating that “He bolted the Republican Party and announced he

was seeking the Libertarian nomination…Johnson is a fiscal conservative, but he also supports

gay marriage, open immigration and abortion” (Antle III, 2012, p. 19). Perhaps an even better

example may lie in famous libertarian philosopher Ayn Rand’s stance on abortion. Years before

the famous Roe v. Wade case, Rand proclaimed, “An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain

to a potential, only to an actual being”. Further, Ayn asserted “Any alleged “right" of one man

which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right” (Biddle,

2011, p.30). One is left to conclude that Rand and her followers do not believe that the unborn

are violated through abortion. Moreover, this ideology gives us a valuable perspective regarding

the application of natural rights to pro-choice. Whereas pro-life advocates defend the natural


right of the unborn, Rand upholds that natural rights apply only to the living, and in libertarian

fashion, she abhors the thought of government aggression when it comes to her body, and more

importantly, to what she sees as her natural right (Rosen, 2011).

It is likely that scientific advancement will render even the youngest fetus viable outside

of the womb. Even so, it is also likely that this debate will have no end. Writing for Society,

Peter Augustine Lawler describes the libertarian cycle of thought, saying, “Libertarians believe

that it is their right to defend natural inequality and diversity from government” (Lawler, 2002, p.

82). Indeed, this statement rings true for all libertarians-but the fundamental difference in their

interpretation regarding abortion lies in their unwillingness to subordinate one set of natural

rights to another. To reiterate, consequentialists will concede to allowing government to uphold

certain moral values, in this case the prohibition of abortion. On the other side, natural-rights

absolutists will abhor the intrusion upon any exercise of freedom, even if those freedoms cause

harm, for this sect of libertarians defends the right of inequality as equally as they defend the

right to equality. In truth, the argument boils down to two incompatible interpretations of natural

rights, and those who believe that abortion is a natural right will be forever at odds with those

who believe that moral responsibility should trump individual freedom.


References

Antle III, W. J. (2012). Gary johnson throws a party: The former new mexico governor becomes

a libertarian, and perhaps a spoiler. American Conservative,11(3), Retrieved from

Biddle, C. (2011). Ayn rand's theory of rights: The moral foundation of a free society. Objective

Standard: A Journal of Culture & Politics, 6(3), 13-35. Retrieved from

Doherty, B. D. (2012). Ron paul: Man of the left. Reason,44(6), 30-35. Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com.nuncio.cofc.edu/pov/detail?vid=13&sid=615066c4-0fb9-4f2e-

a626-5d79158eb917@sessionmgr14&hid=19&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU=

Kane, A. K., & Evans, C. E. (2012). Libertarians and the tea party. American Thinker, Retrieved

from http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/libertarians_and_the_tea_party.html

Lawler, P. A. (2002). Libertarian fantasy and statist reality.Society, 40(1), 81-84. Retrieved from



Ponnuru, R. P. (2002). Lapse of reason. The National Review, 54(2), 33-36. Retrieved from



Rosen, R. R. (2011). Ayn rand: A romantic, secular libertarian. Reviews in American

History, 39(1), 190-195. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.nuncio.cofc.edu/stable/23014329?

&Search=yes&searchText=ayn&searchText=abortion&searchText=rand&list=hide&sear

chUri=/action/doBasicSearch?

Query=ayn+rand+abortion&Search=Search&gw=jtx&prq=An+embryo+has+no+rights.

http://web.ebscohost.com.nuncio.cofc.edu/pov/detail?vid=12&sid=615066c4-0fb9-4f2e-a626-5d79158eb917@sessionmgr14&hid=19&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU







+Rights+do+NOT+pertain+to+a+potential

%2C+only+to+an+actual+being&hp=25&acc=on&aori=a&wc=on&fc=off&prevSearch=

&item=1&ttl=139&returnArticleService=showFullText

Documents

Abortion Libertarian