Why I am a Pro Life Libertarian

Shares 489

Written by Grant M. Deltz

“You cannot have Liberty without life, therefore, life must be defended, as should our Liberty.”

 Now, think, when was the last time a far right pro life supporter mentioned the unintended pregnancy rate or the struggles of being a single mother? When was the last time a far left Planned Parenthood supporter mentioned when the heartbeat begins, or the idea that taxpayer dollars shouldn’t fund abortions?

Neither side wants to look at the full range of the issue.

As a libertarian, I naturally come down on the side of personal choice. However, is the real choice the decision to have an abortion, or the decision to have sex? The logical answer would be: to have sex.

Now, most pro life supporters just stop there with their questions and proceed to call abortion relentless murder and the act of being unaccountable. I am not one of these people. The issue of abortion exists because of two reasons.

  1. Unintended pregnancies happen
  2. There is no support for carrying out the pregnancies

Unintended pregnancies should be recognized as the true issue here. You must solve the unintended pregnancy issue before you can solve the abortion issue.

What can you do?

First, end the war on drugs and allow full access to birth control for women. Many pro life supporters oppose this idea, and I call them hypocrites. They want to end abortion, but don’t want to give women more pre-pregnancy options to avoid situations where abortion becomes an option. Women deserve the right to take birth control. Regardless of moral convictions, it is better to prevent a pregnancy than to terminate a pregnancy – no matter who you ask.

Next, defeat many abortion incentives. One major incentive is the price of having a baby. On average, for a birth with no complications, it will cost $2,600 while a C-section will average out to cost $4,500. Very expensive stuff. Now, I imagine that a libertarian free market healthcare system would lower these costs. The increased competition would have births costing far less.

Another incentive, is not wanting to keep the baby, yet not wanting to have the baby due to the emotional issues involved. The first part, putting it up for adoption, should be a valued option. I’d like to see less adoption regulations though, to streamline the process. The second part of that, the emotional side, will be dealt with either way. It shouldn’t be ignored though. Any institution that offers abortions should also offer free counseling for support.

I would also cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Taxpayer dollars should not go towards funding abortions. If they continue to do so, I would support religious people, or any people, who oppose abortion to withhold from paying taxes.

After these changes I imagine the unintended pregnancy rate will drop incredibly. The next question is, do you support anti abortion legislation at this point? As the situation stands today in 2016, I would not. Black market abortions will only cause harm and danger. However, if the unintended pregnancy rate could drop significantly, I would support legislation banning late term abortions first, then banning abortions after the first trimester later on. The heart usually begins to beat at around six weeks, as a reference.

I do believe that life begins in the womb. I do believe that the concept of abortion is disgusting. However, I am logical, and a libertarian. Women will likely never make a harder decision in their lives. Whatever decision they make should be respected. Yet, this does not mean that the issue of abortion should not be resolved. People of all viewpoints, political, moral, and religious, must come together to make logical and fair change. I believe this is how the issue of abortion could be solved.

I believe you cannot have Liberty without life. Therefore, we must explore every measure possible to defend life while respecting the lives of people involved.

I’m pro life and pro liberty for everybody.

Shares 489
  • winfidel

    Good piece

  • V Benedict

    I admire the balanced, logical pragmatism. You may not want to get I to this in hopes of bringing people to a less intrusive middle position, but I think any discussion of libertarian prolife stance should highlight that abortion (may be considered to?) violates the non-aggression principle :: should be under the purview of libertarian government intervention. Yes, even for a dependent developing young person that demands (here’s where we get hairy) meaningful personal (very) resources from the mother (and ideally father) whose decisions led to the creation of that young person’s new life. A living baby (pre-delivery) is not your proper/land to do with what you will, but rather a person deserving protection by the state and moral agents. Thank you for your thoughtful article!

  • Boulder Commonsense

    The existence of an abortion pill means outlawing abortion would require a war on abortion pills, i.e. yet another War on a Drug. Most libertarians oppose the war on drugs not merely due to a principled stand that it is none of the government’s business (which pro-life libertarians might disagree with in the case of the abortion pill) but because it does more harm than good. A war on the abortion pill is no more successful at keeping abortion pills away from those who want them than alcohol prohibition was at getting rid of alcohol, or the current drug war has been at getting rid of recreational drugs.

    Making abortion illegal would lead to many pregnant women who are unsure what to do keeping their condition secret if they might consider an abortion, precisely because they’d be committing a crime. They are less likely to talk to people who are opposed to abortion who otherwise might have been able to talk them into carrying the child to term and giving them up for adoption, or helping them find resources to be able to keep the child themselves.

    I’d suggest they’d likely have far more impact on reducing the number of abortions if they focused on things like legalizing paying someone to adopt their child, to provide incentive to those who would otherwise have an abortion to instead carry the child to term. (currently they can only cover medical expenses, they can’t provide any “profit” incentive to someone to motivate them to go to the effort of carrying a child to term). There are several times as many people who wish to adopt a baby in this country than there are abortions in the US each year (though that is based on a quick check I did out of curiosity recently, I hadn’t confirmed the numbers).

    I’d suggest instead that those who are personally anti-abortion decide its ok to keep government out of the issue and become pro-choice politically. Not everything that is considered a “sin” by any group, or immoral or unethical is against the law, nor should it be, in part since various groups will disagree. Many aspects of human behavior are “policed” by social pressure rather than government police. Many who are anti-abortion take the stance for religions reasons (not all) and should consider whether they should suggest that punishment be left up to any God that exists rather than man.

    Many religious people (I’m a non-believer, but I’ve read enough about the topic) view humans as having been given the free will to “sin” in order to prove their nature to a God and to be judged for it. If humans make a “sin” illegal, that increases the odds someone is avoiding sinning to avoid man’s punishment, rather than to avoid punishment from a God or due to making a moral choice. Leaving some sins legal allows humans to have a choice to prove their nature and be judged by it.

    It seems odd that many religious people are so vehemently opposed to abortion, when many theologians (not all) suggest that the aborted soul would get a free pass to heaven (or will be born another time) since they hadn’t sinned. They suggest that to think an aborted soul would not be treated mercifully (e.g. due to “original sin”they are born with through no fault of their own) is to doubt the claimed mercy of their God and its fairness by suggesting those who did no wrong are punished. If an aborted soul goes to heaven, it would seem mothers who risk committing a sin via abortion are doing them a favor, whether intentional or not. Presumably this issue isn’t emphasized out of fear women would have abortions for the sake of their unborn child even if it means they are punished.