Challenge to Liberty

by Ron Paul

  I doubt very much if anyone alive today will see technology advance to a stage where talk of adopting aborted fetuses will have any practical meaning. Using the heartbeat as a determinant makes no more sense than using the date the kidneys start to function.

  Brain waves present the strongest challenge, because the absence of brain waves has been used in medicine and law to describe the death of an individual. This argument, obviously, would not satisfy pro-life groups who are fully aware that the fetus without brain waves has all the potential, with only growth and maturation to develop them, which is quite a different story when one is at the other end of the life cycle.

  If it’s acceptable to kill the fetus at different stages, it must follow that human life has relative value.

  But the argument should not be denounced, since far less abortions would be committed if none were performed once brain waves were present. Brain waves occur at approximately the 40th day of gestation—that is 40 days from the beginning of the last menstrual period.

  I could accept a cut-off date for doing abortions, using onset of brain waves, if it were the only alternative to today’s policy. Pushing for this definition of life, prior to the 1973 ruling, would have been tantamount to moral treason, if one supported the pro-life position. However, if it’s acceptable to kill the fetus at different stages, it must follow that human life has relative value.

  There is no longer a debate within the scientific community about when a human life starts—it’s when 23 chromosomes meet up with 23 chromosomes at fertilization. After this instant in time, the human being conceived, if allowed to develop, will grow to maturity. No additional ingredients are needed other than growth and time. The only argument is by those who qualify early life by the adjective meaningful.

  There is no debate about whether the human embryo or fetus is alive. Everyone accepts the fact that the fetus is alive, although receiving its nourishment in a different manner.

  Other human beings receive nourishment at times from IV’s and nasal gastric tubes, but this does not disqualify them from receiving protection of the law. Lately, however, it has been argued that some who are receiving nourishment in this manner can lose the right to live because of the economic burden they impose.

  The economic burden of society argument doesn’t exist in a free society, because only individuals have rights and society—whoever that is—doesn’t assume the role of benefactor, or executioner.

  The idea that a fetus is less human or less alive and deserves less protection because of its location, and the way it receives its nourishment, has no merit.

  Every argument used for the killing of a fetus because of its location is an argument for the killing of the newborn in its crib. The only difference is that the newborn is more demanding and needs more attention than when in the uterus. A newborn places a greater burden on the parents than a fetus, and if the argument for killing the fetus is accepted, the case is even stronger for infanticide.

  Every argument used for the killing of a fetus because of its location is an argument for the killing of the newborn in its crib.

  And it should go without saying that the fetus carried by a human being is human. It’s alive and human; to deny this fact weakens the pro-abortion argument. In recent years, the proponents of abortion have had to drop the charge that the fetus was not alive and was only a glob of tissue.

  The main argument of pro-abortionists now, is that the human life of which we speak is not meaningful. If it’s not meaningful, it is then supposed that it deserves no protection. By that definition, how many millions of people in the world have no meaningful existence and do not qualify for protection?

  If non-meaningful life does not qualify for protection and the government is politically responsible for the material needs—health, education, food, housing—of a vast number of people, the frightening point about abortion is that economics will become the dominant factor in determining to what extent this definition will be carried.

  In China it means not only abortion but sterilization and government-mandated, one-child families. We will move in that direction if we fail to challenge the moral basis of those pushing abortion.

  There is only one issue in this debate, and that is whether the fetus is entitled to the right to life and liberty. Are inalienable rights conferred at conception or at birth? There is no other issue. Privacy, choice, convenience, poverty, quality of life, meaningful existence, rape, genetic purity, intruder, and parasite arguments are simply smokescreens devised by pro-abortionists and are unrelated to the real issue.

  Murray Rothbard in For A New Liberty admits that the abortion issue is “complex” and it is not easy to dismiss the argument “that abortion destroys a human life, is therefore murder, and hence cannot be condoned.” [3] Rothbard correctly avoids getting bogged down in minutiae about when human life begins and rightly states the key question is whether or not the fetus “has a right not to be murdered.”

  But quickly he dismisses this concern by saying no human has the right to “remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human beings’ body.” He explains that every woman has absolute ownership of her own body and she has the right to get rid of “an unwanted entity” from her body. Fetuses are parasites and have no natural right to life, according to Rothbard.

  Yet if this is acceptable, it means that the mother does not lose this right to eliminate an unwanted entity seconds, days, or weeks after birth. The mother is absolute owner of her house and is entitled to the privacy the home affords. The newborn is not less parasitic after birth but more so, demanding more attention for survival. Dr. Rothbard dismisses casually the responsibility of the parents for placing the fetus (and the newborn baby) into the womb (or in the crib). The fetus is not an invader or an intruder deserving the same retaliation as a burglar, but rather is a victim.

  Rothbard does not limit his argument to rape or failed contraception, but explicitly applies this reasoning to planned pregnancy as well, stating: “The mother, as the property owner of her own body, has the right to change her mind and to reject it.”

  The fetus is not an intruder, but a human being innocently placed in the uterus by its parents. It’s less of a parasite on the mother than is a newborn demanding and deserving of attention at all hours of the day and night for many years. Self-ownership of the mother’s body cannot be a greater right than ownership of her home.

  If parental responsibility to our children, both before and after birth, cannot be wholeheartedly endorsed by our ethical standards, the human race and civilization are endangered.

  The closest the parasitic-intruder argument can come in applying it to the fetus is with cases of rape. But here again it falls short. The fetus is innocent of aggression and is placed in a situation of being a parasite. We must remember, however, that if abortions were performed only for pregnancies resulting from rape, there would be only hundreds, instead of millions of abortions each year.

  Although the parasite-intruder argument is supposed to apply only to the fetus, it will be used as an argument for state-imposed infanticide and euthanasia for economic reasons.

  Although the parasite-intruder argument is supposed to apply only to the fetus, it will be used as an argument for state imposed infanticide and euthanasia for economic reasons. Pro-abortion statists will make the leap easily, although most pro-abortion libertarians will avoid the temptation. Nevertheless, accepting this theory for fetal life will be responsible for promoting similar arguments at the other end of the life cycle.

  Although the current position of the Libertarian Party is that abortion is an acceptable and legal procedure at any time prior to birth, many libertarians see abortion as an act of aggression against an innocent life. The woman’s ownership of her own body is generally given as the reason for taking this position.

  If the fetus has no rights and can be aborted by the mother, even if it is because she’s changed her mind about a planned pregnancy, it means that the infant can be
aborted during the ninth month of gestation. No one chooses to defend this position, yet this is the position supporters of Roe vs. Wade and choice must take.

  I believe that very few pro-abortion supporters would maintain this position if they were forced to witness a third-trimester abortion, either by hysterotomy or a salting out procedure.

  And the defenders of the body ownership position cannot cop out by arguing that most abortions are done early in pregnancy and don’t apply to late abortions. If a fetus has no right to life prior to birth, an eight or nine-pound infant could be killed seconds before birth, and it would not be considered an act of aggression.

  Fortunately, there have been few third-trimester abortions, but there are some. This does not permit the pro-abortion people to duck the issue. The killing of the fetus at any stage of gestation is clearly an act of aggression with innocent life at stake.

  The abortion issue has been approached from many different perspectives. Some only see it as a religious issue. Others see it as an economic issue. And some see it as a woman’s issue.

  My approach is different because my background has given me a unique perspective. As a gynecologist and former member of Congress, I have given it serious thought with many personal experiences others have not had. Dominant in my thinking on this issue is the political philosophy based on the premise that no one has the right to initiate force against another.

  No one has the right to initiate force against another.

  The fact is that many Libertarian Party members are influenced by the social mores’ of radical feminism and libertine lifestyles in their thinking on this issue.

  The flexibility that abortion on-demand permits those who are inconvenienced by illegitimate pregnancies will not be given up easily. The unwanted consequences of sexual acts can be altered at will. The convenience of avoiding personal responsibility for a pregnancy can easily be rationalized even by some libertarians, most liberals, and surprisingly by some conservatives.

  The conclusion that abortion is not an act of aggression is not an acceptable libertarian position. As a pro-life libertarian, however, my answers to the difficult questions of what the role of government should be in this matter will differ from those of the conservative right.

  Pro-life liberals and conservatives, for political expediency or religious reasons, are not the least bit hesitant to use intrusive government actions that throw the baby out with the water, i.e., destroy liberty in an effort to preserve it. Since government is very limited in the ability to bring about a perfect nonviolent society, just passing another law is not the answer.

  Government exists to preserve life and liberty and must do so in the best possible way. There are obviously some limits. Absolute property protection is not economically practical. But looting cannot be condoned. Deciding the role of the state in the issue of abortion may be easy for statist liberals and conservatives, but it is not automatic for libertarians who clearly recognize government rarely solves difficult problems.

  Yet I believe that, with diligence, a libertarian approach to the abortion dilemma offers the best answers. A policy where acts of violence, including abortion, can be condemned, while allowing libertarian rules of the market to sort out difficult problems which seem to have no answer, is achievable. No other example in politics provides the challenge that abortion does.

  Although the crisis brewing might appear to be a political crisis, the real crisis is a moral one, the essence of which is the relative value of human life. A society that condones and legalizes the abortions of millions of unborn fetuses cannot survive. Perfect legislation to solve this problem is not available to us, and abortion will never be totally prevented. But legislation does reflect current moral attitudes, and it is crucial that an attempt be made to solve this problem in the best manner possible.

  A pro-life libertarian stance offers a sound and reasonable approach to the dilemma we face.

  CHAPTER III

  Twentieth Century Perspective

  Classical liberalism exerted its intellectual influence in the latter half of the 18th Century. The principles of individual liberty expressed by such men as John Locke and Adam Smith motivated the leaders of the American Revolution and the writers of our Constitution. During the Constitutional Convention, the subject of abortion was not discussed. It was unthinkable to anticipate that fetal life would ever be treated as casually as it has been in the last 30 years.

  Industrialization, modern capitalism, reduction of mass poverty, and a tremendous increase in life expectancy were a 19th Century result of accepting the libertarian notion of inalienable rights to life and liberty of all citizens. It was during this time that the monstrous policy of slavery was finally eliminated. This resulted both from change in moral attitude and the economic fact that slavery was not efficient. Freedom and prosperity were generally enhanced in the 19th Century.

  In the 20th Century, we have not seen a continuation of this process. Although great wealth has been produced in this century, it has resulted from the momentum of market processes released in the 19th Century.

  Today we see a greater discrepancy between rich and poor than we have seen in decades, with respect for individual liberty diminishing daily. Government is bigger than ever, taxes are horrendous, deficits are uncontrollable. And there is no end to this trend in sight.

  A wealthy nation, once tops in productivity, does not consume its wealth and destroy productivity all at once. But if the current trends hold true, the living standards of all Americans will be lowered. We have witnessed a gradual erosion of the beliefs that promoted our revolution and guided us through the 19th Century and allowed great wealth in this one.

  It’s not easy to prove cause and effect when it comes to the general standard of living of the average American and the size and scope of government. But because of our cavalier attitude toward individual liberty and the value of human life, it’s likely that a major political crisis will hit before the American people respond.

  Rarely do we hear that we need less government for the problems we face. Politicians routinely lament that if only there were more funds for new or expanded programs, our problems could be solved. Even fiscal conservatives lobby behind the scenes for more government handouts.

  The basic problem has been that Americans and our political leaders see everything in terms of satisfying the material needs of everyone. Concentration on materialism has produced a total void in the discussion of liberty.

  Rarely do we hear that we need less government for the problems we face.

  Politicians can see and touch a flag and are quickly able to champion its protection for their own political ends without having the vaguest understanding of or concern about the concept of personal liberty.

  This obsession with material well-being and lack of concern for liberty have set the stage for the loss of both.

  Unless our political leaders once again recognize that prosperity is a consequence of liberty, our days as a great nation are numbered. Previously earned wealth and a relatively free society can keep prosperity alive for a long time. But a debt-ridden society, plagued by government intervention in the economy and a paper-money system, will not produce the wealth that the politicians and the people demand if life and liberty are inadequately protected. Personal liberty has deteriorated in this century.

  Certain events and policies have stimulated this trend.

  The Great Depression, which has shaped the economic thinking of every generation since 1930, was the major economic event of the 20th Century. Government policy, especially monetary policy, precipitated the Crash and the Depression, but someone failed to tell our university professors.

  For 60 years now, our students have been taught that capitalism and the gold standard failed and more government intervention in the economy and fiat money are needed to maintain prosperity. In the process of accepting Keynesian, and more recently, supply-side economics, the principles of laissez-faire capitalism have been rejected.

&
nbsp; Since the Great Depression, the emotional and sometimes near-hysterical concern for poverty and the elderly has motivated all economic legislation. Programs ranging from Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, farm subsidies, HUD, Health and Human Services, education, business subsidies, and military weapons production are all directed toward stimulating the economy, preventing poverty, and protecting the elderly.

  Temporary benefits gained by robbing Peter to pay Paul will end when the greater depression hits. Then it will be discovered that there’s not one red cent in the Social Security Fund.

  It’s all been spent, and it’s tragic!

  Already we see a larger poverty class, more homeless, and a greater number than ever without medical benefits, while the rich have gotten richer. But this will all get much worse as the huge debt is liquidated. Temporary benefits that many have enjoyed over the past several decades will not justify the pain that eventually will be felt.

  The real tragedy is that a slow erosion of our liberties has occurred as we have neglected the principles of natural rights. Without a free society, neither wealth nor sound order can be maintained.

  The one economic event needing a new understanding in order to help promote sound economic principles is the Great Depression. It has influenced the policy makers for too long, and the welfare state that has resulted, now championed by conservatives as well as liberals, cannot last.