Carte Blanche: Free to Choose or Free to Live?
Credit UNSPLASH
There have been credible rumors that the Supreme Court will reconsider cases concerning abortion access in Louisiana. The Unsafe Abortion Protection Act was introduced in Louisiana as a means of preventing unsafe abortions by requiring that physicians must possess the capability of sending patients to nearby hospitals in order to perform abortions.
These stipulations seem quite random, however, they would be able to effectively shut down the only three abortion clinics in the state of Louisiana. This piece of legislation undermines the national protections of abortions created by the decision in Roe v Wade. According to a CBS News article released on May 11, a decision on this case, which could effectively rewrite abortion law in America, could be expected in the early summer.
Libertarian opinion on the issue is intensely divided between pro-choice and pro-life, and I think the nature of libertarianism makes this issue so difficult to establish with a consensus within the party. At its core, libertarianism is the distrust of the state’s ability to rule in favor of individuals who possess the best judgment to decide what is best for their life. Preserving the rights of the individual comes into conflict with a central argument at the heart of abortion: the mother or the child.
Abortion is such a difficult topic for Libertarians, the party itself has taken the position of deciding that the government itself has no place to determine whether or not individuals should be free to make their own conscientious decision. Effectively, this makes the Libertarian Party pro-choice, nevertheless, there are those who believe that this would be a violation of equal individual rights.
Within the same document that the libertarian party, the party proclaims their dedication to the preservation of individual rights, however, would we have to give fetuses another legal designation, or are they considered individuals? Does life start at conception, a heartbeat, or does it begin at birth?
The argument to keep the government out of the decision-making process has similar logical reasoning to disagreement with the drug war and decriminalization of substances. People will still do the drugs, a war on drugs will not actually help anyone, rather it would create underground, black market demand and prevent individuals from safely consuming the substances.
Just because the government labels something as “illegal” does not mean that the activity ceases to take place. Furthermore, declaring something as illegal limits the options of individuals who would still deem abortion necessary based on their circumstances. The Guttmacher Institute estimates, as of 2014, that over 22,000 women die every year internationally from illegal, unsafe abortions.
The ability of a female individual to decide if it is best for her to perform an abortion of the child would not be dictated by the state, however, it would uphold the liberties and freedoms of individuals. However, the libertarian argument would deem a program such as planned parenthood as completely moot and would designate that to private vendors.
Of course, this satisfies libertarian ideology to many, however, at its core, it neglects the rights of the fetus as an individual and its absolute right to life. While the pro-choice argument would satisfy individual freedoms and liberties of a pregnant woman, it conflicts with the very core beliefs in libertarianism.
If Libertarianism is the party of preservation of individual liberties, then how could it glance over the absolute right that every human should possess. Of course, we should never negate the struggles of women since they are the only half of our species that are capable of childbirth, my judgment would be negligible to anyone in the situation.
Comparing such a situation as an abortion to drug usage would not be satisfactory since this concerns the death of an individual. During last year's Soho Forum in December, renowned libertarian economist, Walter Block, argued that the life of an individual begins at conception. He rationalizes that neither sperm nor an egg could mature into a full-fledged human being on their own respectively, but the fertilized egg is the beginning process in the cycle of life that.
Block is also the individual who argues for a third option between pro-life or choice, and he considered eviction. As a concept, Block derives the rights of the unborn as property rights and comes to the conclusion that abortion would be a trespass against the unborn’s rights to the property of life. Eviction, he argues, would be the ability for a mother to exercise her choice of refusing to become a mother and place the fetus into some form of an incubator preserving its rights and life.
Eviction of a fetus would be a difficult and potentially harmful process with modern technology, however, Block predicates this condition on the idea that it will eventually become possible thanks to advancements in technology. It is definitely an odd concept and one that the Libertarian party shouldn’t adopt but the essence of the argument is a firm position: abortion is a violation of the rights and freedoms of an individual and should be infringed on unless technology permits both parties’ rights are upheld.
Abortion is very soon going to re-emerge as the next great controversy of 2020 as this year has already been riddled with controversy after controversy that seems to dictate the life or death of America’s soul, whichever side one might fall on. The Libertarian’s position on abortion is a cop-out. They will need to assert one side or the other definitely if they hope to so much as leaving an impression on the impending presidential election the looms over the horizon.
