Abortion and a Free Society

There was a recent discussion on the topic of abortion in a free society on the Anarchapulco Facebook group.  It is an emotion-filled and touchy topic that seems difficult to discuss rationally. I wanted to share my thoughts on this and I wanted to present some alternatives to the discussion that was taking place. This is my attempt to do just that.

To make it a little easier to navigate I have structured this a bit like an FAQ. Each of the "frequent" questions is addressed below. Am I missing something? Let me know and I'd be happy to address.

Is abortion murder?

The simple answer is yes. Libertarians and the derivatives generally believe in the non-aggression principle (i.e. it is wrong to initiate force against others). This is based on the principle of self-ownership. Self-ownership is further expanded by the Philosophy of Liberty. A quick summary of this is that we own ourselves in the past, the present, and the future. The product of our past is our property. The product of our present is our freedom. And, the product of our future is our life. Murder is taking away our future. The future of the developing human is taken away through an abortion. As such, it is murder.

But, the embryo/fetus is not a moral agent.

I'd argue that it is a moral agent. As described above, the philosophy of liberty is not temporally bound except by the bookends of the individual's life. There are arguments for when that life starts. However, there is unique DNA created at the moment of conception and biological activity begins immediately. But, what does this have to do with moral agency? The inability to make reasoned and moral decisions is a temporary state for the developing human. Through normal development, it will achieve moral agency. There are a number of other temporary conditions that a human can be in where we would not consider it moral to strip them of their property even though they cannot, at that moment, make reasoned decisions. This same concept cannot be applied to other animals. An individual frog will never obtain moral agency, as an example.

Isn't a child just the joint product of the parent's life and thereby co-property?

The short answer here is no. To start, under the philosophy of liberty you cannot own another person. Only that person can own themselves. 

So, what do the parents own? 

They each owned the individual reproductive cells. And, they own the consequences of their actions. But, those consequences do not extend to the new life. Instead, the consequences extend to the responsibility to care for and rear the new life. 

The natural biological process that was initiated by their actions is another consequence, whether they like it or not. In other words, if they did not want to risk losing ownership of their reproductive cells they should have taken steps to avoid it from happening. It is akin to playing with fire. If we want to maintain ownership of property we have the responsibility of caring for and protecting that property. If we fail to do this, we have no just complaints about the loss of that property. 

Here is an example: I own a stack of paper. I am careless with this property and I allow it to get near a fire and they burn. I cannot control the physical laws of the universe. I may be able to manipulate them or take steps to avoid them. But, I do not control them and they do not care about my desires. I do not desire for my papers to burn. I do not want to ruin my property. But, I was careless and did not take the appropriate steps to protect the property. Where do I file my grievance against the physical world? I am a victim of my own inability to protect my property. No one else did this to me and I have no recourse as a result. It is a similar situation for the parents.

Doesn't the mother own her womb?

The mother does own her womb. She also owns the consequences of her actions as described above.

Isn't this just an example of the mother evicting a tenant?

While the analogy of the embryo/fetus being a tenant is not perfect it does work fairly well. The mother, through her actions, entered into a voluntary (we'll get to rape later) "rental" agreement with the new life. So, doesn't she have the right to change that agreement and evict the tenant if it is no longer something she wants? In theory, yes, she would have that right. The issue is that the eviction will result in the certain death of the life. So, her actions would be immoral and result in the theft of the future of the evicted life. Hypothetically, if the life could be transferred to a new "home" without killing it there would not be a moral issue. Right now, however, our technology doesn't allow for such a thing to happen. Maybe someday. 

Isn't it just self-defense by the mother and not the initiation of force?

No, it isn't. The mother's moment for self-defense was prior to becoming pregnant. At this point, the biological process - natural laws - have taken over. If she could fulfill the above requirements she could evict. It is also important to point out that the embryo/fetus is there at no fault of their own. They are there as a result of the parent's actions.

The embryo/fetus is a parasite. Doesn't the mother have the right to purge her property of parasites?

It is a stretch to call an embryo/fetus a parasite. At worst it is a symbiotic relationship between the organisms. However, even if it could be classified as parasitic, a standard parasite doesn't have any moral agency. So, for similar reasons as described above, it would be immoral to purge this parasite.

Isn't it equally wrong to force a mother to carry a child that she doesn't want to term?

Who exactly is forcing the mother? It is a consequence of her actions that she is in this position. And, arguably, it is her responsibility to see it through. She has free will. She could choose to perform an immoral action and get an abortion. It is still wrong.

Ok, what can "society" do about abortion if it is immoral?

Not much. Going back to the previous section, we cannot force her to carry the child. How would you even attempt to enforce that? Lock her up? Threaten violence? That doesn't do much to protect the developing life. And, I am not sure how it would be moral.

The best that we could do is apply shame and ostracism. You could ostracize anyone who performs abortions and you could shame those who obtain them. I don't know how far a free society should go with such steps but it would be a moral neutral method of dealing with the issue. Society could also work on applying empathy for mothers that find themselves in this unwanted situation. I'm sure there are ways that concerned people could help them through the challenging times.

But, can't we use proxy self-defense on behalf of the embryo/fetus to prevent abortion?

Reference the last section. How would this be accomplished without causing more harm or further immoral behavior?

It is also important to look at the concept of justice. In a free society, justice should be about making the victim(s) whole again from their loss. If someone steals something it would be justice for the perpetrator to return or replace the item (and maybe sweeten the deal to make up for the temporary loss). The idea of punishment is a statist premise. Punishment is not justice as it does not make the victim(s) whole again.

So, what about murder? Who is the victim(s) of murder? The primary victim is deceased. There is nothing that can be done to make that whole again. There are also potentially secondary victims: those that depended on the deceased. They could argue a claim to be made whole again for their loss. But, in reality, they cannot ever really be made whole either. So, does the murderer just get away with it? Well, that is a topic for a different discussion. However, society can perform extreme ostracism. Basically, they eject the murderer from their midst. They no longer have any dealings with them, period. 

This may be more extreme than what is needed for an abortion. But, the process could be similar. The primary victim of the abortion is deceased. If it was a unilateral decision, the father may have a claim against the mother. But, it would be very difficult to assess the value of the loss. So, we're just left with shame and ostracism. Or, we could be statist and use coercive force to extract punishment to make everyone "feel" better.

What about rape, failed birth control, medical emergencies, etc?

In rape, the mother has a claim against her rapist. She doesn't have a claim against the life resulting from that rape. That life is not at fault in any way. This may seem unfair and perhaps it is. A lot of biological and physical realities can seem that way. It seems unfair that we die, it seems unfair that we age, etc. Unfair doesn't make it any less immoral to abort that life.

With failed birth control, you rolled the dice and lost. Do a better job of protecting your property. Again, unfair doesn't excuse immoral actions.

A medical emergency is more nuanced. It can easily be argued that self-defense is being used to preserve the life of the mother. And, therefore, it is not immoral to abort the baby. Maybe. It could also be argued that the mother sacrificing her life to save the child is heroic. Maybe. If the life of the child cannot be saved but the mothers can, it seems like a no-brainer to me.

Thanks for reading, I welcome feedback and discussion. Please let me know if you have any questions.