Abortion and self-ownership

[TexArcana]

Since the self ownership thread was getting off topic, I promised I would start a new thread on abortion.

Please note: this is my personal position.  Although I believe this position is congruent with all Libertarian principles, this is not the definitive Libertarian position on abortion.  

Many Libertarians are pro-life in the standard meaning of that phrase.   http://www.L4L.org/  

Many Libertarians are pro-choice within the standard meaning of that phrase.  http://www.pro-choicelibertarians.net/

The party platform is neutral on this issue.

For example, Michael Badnarik is pro-life but feels it is a State's right issue.

Finally  None of this is intended to be a guide as to what one should do.  Obviously if a woman is pregnant she should carry the child to full term.  This is meant as an illustration of the limits of force in a just society.

------------Executive summary:  ------------
This position respects the life, Rights, and Humanness of both mother and child.  Neither's rights are placed ahead the other's.

This position would allow the outlawing of any abortion beyond the point of normal viability (so-called partial birth etc.) that results in the intentional killing of the fetus.

This position would allow early term abortions and shows why this is not murder in the normal sense.

This position shows why any 3rd party has the Right to attempt to rescue an about to be aborted fetus, and gives those of us who are pro-life a positive outlet for our energies that will actually save lives, without driving abortions and abortionists into the back alleys.

Finally I offer a means to use free market methods to drive fetal deaths toward zero.

------------Begin Definitions------------------------
(yes, I know these definitions are not standard - but I hate typing embryo, zygote, blastosphere etc.)

Fetus - Any Human being from conception to birth.
Child - Any Human being from birth to maturity.  (some on this board are still children  

Normal Viability - The point at which a fetus could survive on it's own with care equivalent to that required by any other child, or minimal medical support (incubator / isolet /oxygen etc.)

Medical Viability - The point at which a fetus could survive given extraordinary medical care.  A moving target which will depend on the fetus, and the curent state of the art.

Own - Having something that belongs to you, which is not dependent upon the action or permission of anyone else.

Property - Tangible or intangible items which may be owned.  Food is a tangible property.  Life is an intangible property.

To own one's life - able to live on one's own.  Think of a normal full-term baby.  

    - An adult Human being with life-threatening asthma (such as myself) would fit this definition only if they themselves already owned the means to purchase their medicine, or could earn enough money to support their medical needs.

    - If an adult Human being with life-threatening asthma required charity to acquire their medicine, they would not fit this definition unless and until someone gave them that charity.

Murder - the intentional act of removing life from someone who owns their life.
------------End Definitions------------------------

------------Begin Axioms------------------------
(unprovable by definition - I will not respond to posts challenging these, as it is pointless to argue about axioms.  If you don't agree - fine; be that way.)

All fetuses are alive and are Human beings, with all attendant Rights from the moment of conception.

All Human beings own their bodies.

All Human beings have exactly the same set of Rights.

One such Right is the Right to own property (tangible and intangible)

No Human being may initiate force to deprive another Human being of that which is owned, nor to deprive another Human being of any of their Rights.  

No Human being may initiate force to require another Human being to provide him with property, including, but not limited to, food, water, shelter and medicine.

Any Human being may counter force with equal or superior force to retain that which is owned or to defend a Right.

Government exists to provide superior force for the weak to defend their Rights and property (among other purposes).

Resources and knowledge are limited.  Not every need can be met.
---------------End Axioms---------------------

[TexArcana]

--------------Begin Theorems----------------
(I believe I can prove any of these from the axioms above, by simple logic if required to but I have stated them as givens to save time.  If you wish to argue any of these with me, fine.  Let's roll.)

Right to life:

- The Right to life is not open-ended.  
We do not have an unlimited Right to life.  If we did, then the graveyards would be full of people in desperate need of ACLU representation.

-We only have a Right to keep the life we already own.  
More specifically, we have the Right to that life which we own:
1) By virtue of inherent ability.
     -Intentionally doing anything that results in the removal of life from such an individual is murder.

2) By virtue of medical technology.
     - Intentionally turning off a required medical device, or preventing a doctor from performing his/her duties is murder.

3) By virtue of charity.  (either directly or via #2 above)
     - Intentionally preventing a kidney donor from donating is murder if it causes the would-be recipient to die.

- Extant need is not sufficient to override self ownership.
If only you and I have the same rare blood type, and you are in dire need of 2 pints in order to continue living, that does not justify you holding me down and taking it.  I am justified in defending myself by whatever means necessary, as long as you persist in trying to be Dracula.  

-Initiating force by proxy is equivalent to initiating force directly.  
If you get a law passed that says I must report to the hospital and submit to a blood donation.  I am justified in using whatever force is required to prevent it.  

(As Michael Badnarik is fond of saying in situations like these: "You bring your needle and I'll bring my .45, and we'll see who makes the bigger hole.")

- Preventing a 3rd party from providing a thing via charity is equivalent to stealing that thing.
If I agree to provide you with those 2 pints, and someone else initiates force to prevent me, you (or I) are justified in using whatever force is required to see that I am able to donate the blood.

--------------end Theorems----------------

Okay, with all those in mind, we are ready to tackle abortion.

There is some point in the development of a fetus, where it becomes "viable".  This is the point where it could possibly live outside the womb with the same level of care as required by any other child.  This point varies with the individual fetus, but is usually no earlier than the 28th week.

There is an earlier point which I call medical viability.  This is the point where the child can survive but may require extraordinary medical measures.  The current world record is 21 weeks.

[TexArcana]

------from implantation to the point of medical viability--------
The mother and fetus own their own bodies, but the fetus does not yet own it's life.  As long as the mother wishes to provide the fetus with a womb, then the fetus owns it's life by virtue of charity, and any intentional action which causes that mother to abort is murder.

If the fetus is damaged, sick or incomplete, and needs medical care, and someone is able and willing to provide such medical care (with or without being paid), then that fetus owns it's own life, and any intentional act which causes an abortion is murder.  

If the fetus dies despite the best efforts of the medical staff, then that is not murder, any more than if a 40-yr old dies during heart bypass surgery.  

If no one is able or willing to provide the required medical care, and the fetus dies, that is not murder.  We are not required to provide medical care to everyone who needs it.

If no one is able or willing to provide the required medical care, but the fetus survives anyway, and the mother continues to provide womb charity, then that fetus owns it's life by virtue of inherent ability to overcome the medical problem and by virtue of charity on the mother's part and any intentional act which causes an abortion is murder.  

Should the mother no longer wish to give such charity to an otherwise healthy fetus, and the medical technology is not sufficient to allow the child to survive outside the womb, then an abortion is not murder.  

This is because the extant need of one Human being (the fetus) is not sufficient to override the other Human being's (the mother's) ownership of her own body.

Any attempt to force the mother to provide such charity (either directly, or by law) is equivalent to forcing you to provide organs or blood for the sick and dying.

------after medical viability but before normal viability----
The fetus owns it's own life subject to the availability of medical knowledge, resources and the ability of others to provide the resources required.  If there are insufficient resources, then an abortion is not murder any more than it was prior to the point of medical viability.

If a 3rd party agrees to provide charity to save the fetus (either a transplant to another woman's womb, or an artificial womb, or premature delivery followed by neo-natal intensive care etc.) then they must be allowed to try.  The mother has no right to prevent anyone else from attempting to provide charity to the fetus.

Government is justified in using force to require the doctor and mother to take all reasonable steps to facilitate such a rescue.

------After the point of normal viability--------
The fetus is capable of living on it's own.  The fetus fully owns it's own life.  Any method of abortion which intentionally kills the fetus is murder.   Induced labor and premature delivery which leaves the child alive is not murder.

If the mother no longer wishes to give womb charity, then induced labor and premature delivery is not endangerment, but removal of that fetus from a dangerous, possibly abusive, environment.  Even if the fetus dies in the process, so long as the intent is a live birth, then this is not murder.

The proper forum for determining intent and culpability of in such circumstances is a medical review board, and / or a court room.

-------After Birth------------------
The child owns it's own life, but it does not yet own the means of life (food, water, shelter) If the mother is unwilling or unable to provide these, then she must allow others to do so.  Intentional starvation, dehydration or exposure of a child resulting in death would be murder.

If no one can provide the means of life, then this is not murder, anymore than the death by starvation of children every day on this planet is murder.  (unless someone is using food as a weapon, and keeping food charity from reaching those who are starving)

---------An alternative to traditional abortion-----

Those who wish to adopt, or those who wish to donate their resources (money, expertise, etc.) should have the option of attempting to rescue unwanted fetuses.

There are 3 windows of opportunity to rescue these fetuses:

1)  In the very earliest stages of pregnancy, if the mother can come in soon enough, the fetus (although only a single fertilized egg) might be rescued prior to implantation.  The fetus could then be placed in a surrogate womb.  The fetus might also be frozen until a suitable surrogate could be found.  As long as someone was willing to pay for the costs of keeping them in liquid nitrogen, this fetus would own it's life until someone was willing to act as surrogate.

It may be possible to surgically remove evan an implanted fetus and transplant them into the womb of a willing surrogate.  Parental rights of the aborting mother would be terminated, and an adoption followed by transplantation would commence.

From the aborting mother's point of view, this would be very similar to a standard D&C.  The limiting factor here would be the ability to dilate the cervix wide enough to admit the fetus and placenta, and the ability to keep the placenta from bleeding or being rejected by the surrogate mother.

Various technologies may be developed that could extend the point at which this could be accomplished into the first few weeks of pregnancy.  These might include heart/lung machines to take over the task of oxygenating the fetus' blood while the placenta grows into the new mother's uterus, artificial amniotic sacs and fluids as well as hormonal and other treatments to make the surrogate mother receptive to the placenta.

2) After medical viability but prior to normal viability.  This would be an induced labor / premature birth followed by whatever medical procedures are required.  Again the aborting mother's parental rights would be terminated, and the adopting mother and/or father would become responsible for the child's medical bills.

Various technologies may be developed that could push the earliest date at which this could be done further and further back toward the point point of conception.  These might include artificial wombs, and other fluid environments which would allow the children to develop their lungs

3) After normal viability but prior to full term.  Induced labor followed by standard neo-natal care procedures.

There is a gap between #1 and #2 during which it may not be possible to rescue the fetus.  Since the mother has the Right not to be forced to give charity, all that can be done is offer her monetary or other inducements in hopes that she will voluntarily agree to wait.

As more and more fetal rescues are performed, the technology will improve.  

By making every attempt to deliver all fetuses prematurely instead of aborting, I believe the vast majority could be saved.  Those that die can be viewed as having died in the midst of a medical procedure designed to save them.  Terrible, yes, but not the horror of intentional murder that we now have.

[Brambila]

I've got to go, but when I get back this afternoon, I will respond to this. You have an interesting theorum but many logical flaws.

[David S]

In my estimation abortion is the toughest issue to resolve. Using Libertarian philosophy I am unable to reach a conclusion on the subject. I could argue either pro-life or pro-choice. Its a question of the mother's right to control her own body vs the fetus' right to live. My guess is that it will always be a devisive issue, but I need some time to study your ideas.

[Brambila]

Now that I’m back, I can respond to your post.

I) Definitions

A. Firstly, the definition of “own” is flawed, and it’s very important to this argument. For the sake of continuing this debate, let us define “own” as it truly is, as opposed to this interpretation.  To own is to have something that is yours out of your labor or out of legality. To be more specific, if it were legal, that would mean a person in authority proclaims it to be yours (“The King of France declares that the town of Lourdes belongs to the Duke of Foix”, “My father  has given me this cookie”, etc). On the other hand, if it were your property out of labor, that would mean that your labor in receiving it makes it your property, if you took it out of nature. For instance, if you were to go into land that is unowned and pick the fruit of a tree, that fruit would belong to you, because out of the labor of picking that fruit from that tree, the fruit becomes your property.

B. Also, the definition of “Life ownership” is flawed, as living without dependence is impossible for human beings. As Aristotle says “Man is by nature a political animal,” meaning that we depend on each other to have social and sane lives. To further his quote, man is also a life-relying animal, as without all the blessings of nature man would not survive. Man relies on other living beings to survive. We rely on trees to provide fruit; cows to provide milk; sheep to provide warmth; et cetera. It is imperative that living beings exist for man’s survival. Simply because a being relies on another specific being doesn’t determine it’s ownership of it’s life. Ultimately, however, the fetus is not only relient on the mother, but again, living beings. The fetus is reliant on the mother’s husband to protect her; on the cows that died to feed her; on the tailors to clothe her; on the employer to pay her; et cetera. Ultimately, humanity is completely reliant on each other for our wellbeing and livelihood. Therefore, to say that dependency determines ownership of a being’s own life is a flawed argument, and the argument that slave owners used in Islam. Muslims would justify slave ownership on the premise that the slave relied on the Muslim for his physical and spiritual wellbeing. It is an interesting definition, but incorrect.

C. “Property” is also incorrect, as life is an intangible item that cannot be owned.

D. “Murder” is once again a more legal and ethical term, as the definition of killing an innocent human being, which is an item that has (owns) a life. All human beings, we must remember, own their own lives. No living human has no ownership over his or her body.

II) Theorums

A.   Murder is, simply put, the intentional killing of an innocent person.  Your options are a false dilemma. There is only one definition of murder- the intentional killing of an innocent human being with ill will intended.

B.   “Right to Life” phrase is open-ended. Of course if “Right to Life” was taken out of context as you are doing, it sounds like it’s not, but since the context of its definition is specifically the fetus and its rights, then the title is correct. The fetus does deserve the basic right to life as any other being does. It is in context to a specific age of human it that has been stripped of humanity and the rights included.

The rest of your theorems are simply your opinion and are founded on your own personal incorrect definitions, so I wanted to clear this up.

Viability is a flawed argument altogether. As I stated earlier, everyone is dependent on one another. For that matter, the fetus is not only dependent on the mother, but also a myriad of other beings. In addition, dependency alone doesn’t give the allowance to kill a being. If you knew the being was going to survive, especially by a certain date, it would be immoral to kill that being. For instance, if a person in a coma gave signs that he would come out of the coma within some weeks, taking that person off of life support would be murder. However, if the person showed no signs, killing that person would not be murder, as there is ambiguity. With the fetus, there is no ambiguity. You will know by at the most forty weeks if the fetus will survive.

Hope this helps.

[cwelsch]

I'd say the party platform is pro-choice but fairly neutral in application.