Abortion Part II

 As with so many topics I thought I might address, a quick search of my prior blogs shows I’ve done so already on this topic (abortion), not so long ago, in fact.  To cut to the chase, I’m pro-LIFE, despite being Libertarian.  And no, the position does not stem from my being Catholic, rather it simply derives from what I consider the common sense conviction that life begins at conception, not birth.  Anyone inclined to read more about my particular argument, can do so below.

Chris' Blog: In Defense of the Unborn (formula57l.blogspot.com)

I’ve found there’s more I have to say on the topic.  The pro-choice crowd seems to consider it disingenuous to prohibit abortion but then withhold social welfare programs which might help a single mother now raising an unwanted baby.  I would take issue with that argument.   And here’s where Libertarians, who otherwise appear to agree with liberals on this particular topic, may actually diverge.

Most the laws we have tend to be negative:  DON’T murder each other.  DON’T steal from each other.  DON’T rape each other.  DON’T defraud each other.  We’re simply telling people what they can’t do.  It costs you nothing to NOT kill, rape, steal or defraud.  You’re simply NOT doing something. 

However, subsidizing an unmarried mother, paying for food, shelter, education, etc. are all positive things.  That is, food, school, education, health care, require you to pay someone to provide it.  It’s an affirmative duty.  If the unborn child is innocent of the circumstances of its conception, likewise the rest of society, faceless taxpayers, are also innocent of the conception itself.  The only one with an affirmative duty to support the child are its own parents, including the father.  And I’m not aware of anyone on the pro-life side of the issue proposing to make any changes to child support obligations.

Oh, one more thing.  I’m hearing this business of “men don’t have the right to decide” on the issue of abortion.  Presumably they mean pro-life men arguing that abortion should be illegal – which would include me.  Does that also include, more specifically, the father of the child at issue?  If we will hold him responsible for 18 years of child support, aren’t we also going to give him the prerogative to veto the mother’s decision to abort the child?   I will also add that there are pro-life women, and pro-choice men.  Excluding men from the debate would also ignore the former and exclude the latter as well.  To focus on the gender of the person is simply ad hominem.  If abortion should be legal, it should be; if it should be illegal, it should be.  Neither depends on whether the person making the argument has a penis or a vagina.