In Defense of the Unborn

On a rare occasion, I’ll express a controversial political opinion, in this case, principled objection to abortion.  

Which is even more remarkable as I identify as a libertarian.  But the pro-life libertarian faction, though a minority of that already small clique of self-identified Libertarians, is by no means insubstantial.

To my knowledge I have never impregnated a woman such that she needed an abortion.  My two most substantial romantic & intimate relationships were with women past childbearing age.   Of the other women none of them became pregnant, much less aborted my child.

My position derives not from obedience to the Pope, any bishop or local Catholic priest or church, or anything directly related to the Big Guy Upstairs or his Very Cool Son.  It’s simply a conviction that terminating the life of an unborn child violates the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and is immoral.

Libertarians cite the NAP, which means principled objection to any initiation of the use of force.   Use of force in self-defense or in retaliation for the initiation of force by another is justified.  Some may argue that an unwanted pregnancy not caused by the negligence or promiscuousness of the mother is itself an aggression and thus a violation of the principle.  But this confuses the aggressor – the father – with the child itself. 

The mother’s fault may vary from negligence all the way to rape victim, i.e. 50% to 0%.   But here’s the thing:  the unborn child is innocent of the circumstances of its conception.  The child is, by nature, 100% innocent, 0% at fault or guilty.  The only thing more unfair than forcing a woman to submit to 9 months of unwanted pregnancy and likewise the pain of childbirth is holding the child itself responsible by killing it.  

Then there’s the issue of harm.  These days, in civilized countries, the risks of pregnancy have been greatly reduced, though not to zero.  There will always be some risk of complications with a pregnancy.  But one person absolutely guaranteed to die as a result of an abortion is the child itself.  Moreover, I have siblings, and many others do.  If pregnancy and/or childbirth was “bad”, we would all be only children as our mothers would refuse to bear more than one child after experiencing the pain and inconvenience of the first pregnancy and birth.   

Another issue is that many couples want to have children but cannot.  That includes not merely gays and lesbians who are unsuitably equipped, but also plenty of straight but infertile couples.  Carrying the baby to term and offering it for adoption by childless couples strikes me as a far more appropriate answer to an unwanted pregnancy than abortion – in addition to being in the baby’s own best interests.  This also addresses the issue of an unwanted baby being raised in an unwanted household, by a single mother, or all sorts of other situations in unwanted pregnancies used to justify abortion instead of making some effort to find a suitable family for the child.  Again, the child itself is unquestionably innocent.

Whether to ban it or not is a more difficult question for me to answer.  Technically I consider it the murder of an innocent child.  “It’s my body,” may assert female pro-choicers, but that’s not completely accurate.  No other part of your body will emerge 9 months later as a human being.  An embryo or fetus is in a unique position as such.  Ideally, abortion should be illegal.  Sadly, women will insist on having them whether they’re legal or not.  But the fact that murder itself still occurs is not reason to allow people to do so legally.  And I can’t help concluding that terminating the life of an unborn child is murder. 

Decide amongst yourselves.