You must read the conclusion at the end of this article before commenting.
The more I try to think through the consequences of and reasons for various policies, the more libertarian I become. Libertarianism comes in varying degrees, but regardless of what exceptions one might add, the root of libertarianism is the belief that we are each to mind our own business and let others be. The exception, of course, is that we may intervene to stop others who are oppressing others, or to compel them to make restitution to those they have harmed. Murray Rothbard carries libertarianism to an incredible length, taking the essential beginning principles to the advocation of an orderly anarcho-capitalism. Currently I’m reading his For a New Liberty, which, despite any disagreements I have with it, is a rigorous and logical exposition of libertarian principles.
But he turns into an illogical and ruthless manipulator of principles as soon as abortion comes up. Now, I’m not going to set out and try to counter every possible pro-abortion argument. Instead, I’m going to tear Rothbard’s arguments to shreds and leave everything else for another day. First, I give you Rothbard’s words from For a New Liberty, pp. 107-108:
This brings us to the more complex case of abortion. For the libertarian, the “Catholic” case against abortion, even if finally rejected as invalid, cannot be dismissed out of hand. For the essence of that case—not really “Catholic” at all in a theological sense—is that abortion destroys a human life and is therefore murder, and hence cannot be condoned. More than that, if abortion is truly murder, then the Catholic—or any other person who shares this view—cannot just shrug his shoulders and say that “Catholic” views should not be imposed upon non-Catholics. Murder is not an expression of religious preference; no sect, in the name of “freedom of religion,” can or should get away with committing murder with the plea that its religion so commands. The vital question then becomes: Should abortion be considered as murder?
Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion. The Catholic antiabortionist, for example, declares that all that he wants for the fetus is the rights of any human being—i.e., the right not to be murdered. But there is more involved here, and this is the crucial consideration. If we are to treat the fetus as having the same rights as humans, then let us ask: What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being’s body? This is the nub of the issue: the absolute right of every person and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body.
The common retort that the mother either originally wanted or at least was responsible for placing the fetus within her body is, again, beside the point. Even in the stronger case where the mother originally wanted the child, the mother, as the property owner in her own body, has the right to change her mind and to eject it.
The common argument against abortion, that the fetus is not human, is, to my mind, horrifying, but at least it maintains at least a shell of respectability by implicitly acknowledging that it would not be right to choose to kill an innocent and non-threatening human by means of abortion. The self-defense argument for abortion in times of medical necessity makes me squirm but it also lays down an argument which, whether ultimately right or wrong, at the very least shows some respect for human life, in this case the mother’s. I don’t plan to argue either of those right now.
But Rothbard’s arguments, on the other are disgusting in their cruelty and shocking in their departure from the libertarian ideals which Rothbard is usually so eloquent in defending. Firstly, he decides to, at least for the sake of argument, acknowledge that a fetus is fully human. But then he defines the body as property. So far, so good. Using the common definition of property as that which one has a legal right to decide use of, our bodies are our individual properties. He reasons that property rights allow us to exclude another person from being on our property. In this he is also correct. He goes on to say that even if we purposefully invite someone onto our property, we may later change our minds and make them leave. In this he is also correct.
But then he makes a fatal error:
What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body.
He then assumes that property rights allow one, at any time and for any reason, to eject someone from one’s own property even if that results in the death of an innocent ejectee. And it is at this very point where he becomes inconsistent. For examination will show that this is a rule he has come up with that is only going to be applied to the case of abortion. And if it is true that he has produced a made-up rule for this particular case, then it is worthless for him to pretend that his policy on abortion is part of a libertarian mindset derived from the non-aggression principle.
Imagine, for a moment, that you are the proud operator of a ski lift, which takes skiers up a mountainside at high altitudes. Your ski lift operates automatically, and sometimes you like to sit on the ski lift with the passengers. One particular day, you are on a ski lift and a fellow is sitting in it next to you, and you suddenly decide that you wish to remove him from your property. And so you throw him forcibly off the ski lift. It is true that he dies a short while after hitting the ground bursts his intestines, but, to use Rothbard’s own wording if he dies, it does not rebut the point that you have an absolute ownership right to your ski lift. You have simply exercised your property rights.
Imagine, again, that you live in the Everglades in a cabin in the woods, and that you drive past an area infested with man-eating crocodiles every day on your way into town. One day, you offer a boat ride to your six-year-old son. As you are passing the crocodile-infested area, you run out of gas. As you wait for help to arrive, your kid starts get whiny about how he’s thirsty, and so you change your mind about letting him on your property, and you demand that he leave the boat. He, being a bright little chap, responds that the crocodiles may ‘eat him up’, and that he does not wish to leave. You give him a short speech about how respect for property rights is central to any logical system and that therefore he must respect your wishes and leave his property. The little brat still refuses to hear the voice of reason, and so you push him out of the boat, where he is torn to pieces by the crocodiles and screams out some ridiculous nonsense about how your disrespect for his right to his own body makes you the real violator of property rights. You feel a bit sad and angered that he failed to understand, but at least feel a little proud that your kid managed to rapidly grasp the terminology of libertarianism well enough to make a superficially compelling case for you being a murderer. Precocious little guy he was. But, to quote Rothbard, if he dies, it does not rebut the point that you can do whatever you like with your boat, including forcibly ejecting your kid into a swarm of crocs.
Conclusion: Now, I am obviously not trying to say that any of the nightmare situations I described are exactly the same as abortion. Every situation is different. What I am saying, however, is that pressing Murray Rothbard’s views on the right to expel from property to its logical conclusions shows his particular argument against abortion to be bizarre and inconsistent and cruel. Now, feel free to say what you will in the comments, but if you show that you misunderstand the fact that I am simply arguing against Rothbard’s principles on this case, I’ll probably delete your comments.
2 Comments
I agreed whole heartedly with the article. I’m a huge fan of Murray Rothbard, and he disappoints me on this very issue. It is hard to feel him out, because he is vicious in using terms like “parasite”. I also disagree with him saying that it is not the duty of parents to care for their kids until they are able to do so themselves.
My solution to both of these positions he holds (for most instances) is the idea of the implicit contract. The man and woman are taking the risk of a pregnancy occurring. They are responsible for whatever risks may be present. It is creating an implicit contract that by carrying out the actions, they will bear the consequences. A human life may come as a result, therefore it is a contract to bring the child to term and care for it until it can do so on its own.
The case of rape presents a very unique case, because no consensual contract is made at that point. Let it be said that if the embryo is a human being (which it is hard to argue it not being so with research into embryology) the non-aggression principle applies. Although I am willing to debate issues like pregnancy due to rape, or the issue of a mother who may die from a pregnancy. The thing is that these two things constitute such a small amount of pregnancies, and they only use them to sell it whole sale. The argument would be that how do we know if they could die? Or… How do we know she was raped or not? Therefore, according to them, we would have to accept it wholesale.
Thank you for the article, and it is great to see someone with the same political leanings as me agreeing on the issue of abortion.
The contract argument seems to have some merit. It’s not air-tight, but then again it would be hard to expect a contract-based system to produce perfect answers when dealing with people who have no power to make decisions or care for themselves.
Rothbard’s views on children are not quite nearly as troublesome as his views on abortion, but they’re still problematic. Are you familiar with Block’s doctrine on child abandonment?
Before Roe v. Wade, Texas had a system which allowed a rape exemption without allowing all abortions. The idea behind it was that the rape exception must be an affirmative defense: that if a woman did not at least file a police report concerning the rape in a timely fashion, the abortion could not be granted. Again, in this world no legal system will work perfectly, but there’s ways to avoid wholesale abortion while still allowing exceptions.