You either own your self, or you do not.  If the government controls you, you do not own your self.

The free market provides ... always!  To reduce the market, you must reduce the demand for the market, and this can only be successfully done by providing a more desirable alternative for the market.

                     Abortion

When it comes to abortion, everyone assumes that a libertarian MUST be pro-choice (pro-abortion).  Many libertarians deny that there are many libertarians who oppose abortion, ranging from banning partial birth/late term abortions to ANY abortions not required to protect a woman’s life.  I have good reason to believe that the number of libertarians who oppose at least some conditions for abortion is at least one in three.   

There are two perfectly valid libertarian arguments regarding abortion: 

1)  If I allow government to tell a woman what she can do with her own body, at any point in her life, then she does not truly own her self.  And if I allow one exceptional circumstance, then why cannot government make other exceptions, including controlling me?   

2)   All human life is protected under the Constitution including the unborn child's.  Life is a Right.  For this, two theories must be implied, or at least considered.  A)  The unborn child’s life is equal (or near equal) to the mother’s life.  B)  The unborn child becomes a human at some point during pregnancy.  Some would say at the moment of conception, to remove the grey area. 

At the moment of conception, a single celled organism exists.  Will it turn into an autonomous human being at some point?  Yes it will.  But it currently lacks the very essence of what separates us from the rest of life, including the other apes, an enormously complex brain.  In fact it lacks a nervous system period.  Over many weeks a nervous system will develop, and a rudimentary brain will result.  Eventually the embryo will come to be somewhat recognizable as human in distorted appearance, and eventually a clearly recognizable human fetus will exist.   

But early in pregnancy, this embryo is nothing we would readily recognize as human.   

Would you look the other way if a woman gave birth to a child, and then a week later brought the baby into the doctor's office, and told the doctor she was really exhausted every day by this baby?  That it was damaging her physical and mental health, as well as her financial health.  So she pays the doctor to chop the baby to pieces and dispose of the body.  Who would say that this should be a legal activity?  If not, why not?

Would you look the other way if a woman went to her doctor’s office in the seventh month of her pregnancy, and had him induce labor and chop the fetus up inside her vagina?  Would this be a legal abortion or murder?  Or both?  Who would say that this should be a legal activity?  If you say this should be allowed, what are your reasons and the consequences?  If you say this should NOT be allowed, what are your reasons and the consequences?   [THINK]

Would you look the other way if a woman gave birth to a child two months prematurely?  And a week later while the infant was in neonatal care, the woman went to her doctor and stated that this baby was damaging her physical and mental health, as well as her financial health.  So she pays the doctor to chop the baby to pieces and dispose of the baby.  Who would say that this should be a legal activity?  What is the difference between this, and the above paragraph? 

Is the act of passing through the birth canal the moment when a baby becomes human?  Is the moment of conception when a baby becomes human?  Does the baby become human somewhere in between?  If so, at what point in between?  [And be careful with this argument because a)  a baby is wholly dependent for its survival outside the womb on others for many years, and b) a newborn baby is really a developing fetus outside the womb for about the next two years (a unique aspect of human development, that ends with "the terrible twos").] 

Historically, quickening was recognized as the moment the soul entered the body, or that life entered the fetus, and the baby became human.  Quickening is when the mother starts to feel the baby kicking.  This coincides with the development of a brain that is now testing out and expanding its circuitry to the forming muscles of the limbs.  So actually, this is a pretty convincing place, and not wholly arbitrary, to suggest that human life begins here or at some point thereafter.

Current medical science  generally can keep babies born at 27 weeks gestation,  both a very good chance at survival, and development with no or with only mild complications.    Babies born less than 23 weeks of gestation almost always succumb.  This is because their brains, gastrointestinal tract and lungs have not developed sufficiently to permit survival away from their mother's circulatory system.  In between 23 and 27 weeks gestation lies a grey zone in which serious complications to the infant, if it survives, are probable (but not certain) and well documented.  This 23 week boundary is not likely to be pushed back until science has developed an artificial womb.

That life begins at conception is comforting for its black and white status, but seems rather unrealistic, in that we are defending the right of a clump of cells little different that any other clump of human cells to be a protected human life.  [A good argument to stop bathing?]

The birth canal theory of life seems as monstrous to me, as the moment of conception argument seems ludicrous.  It too is  non-arbitrary.  But as my above three examples demonstrate, it is based upon the single explicit act of being born, not on the stage of development.  This seems like murder to me.  So, at least for me, at some point after conception I go from not really caring about whether a fetus is aborted, or not, to deciding it is murder.  That this is pretty much determined by how far advanced the fetus has grown, especially its brain, and that I am bothered when a fetus reaches a stage where it is viable.  Regrettably, at what point the fetus is "a human being endowed by their creator with unalienable rights to life," remains arguable.

So here is my dilemma.  I believe at some point abortion becomes murder.  And I also believe that if I allow a single exception, and say that if you become pregnant you are no longer in charge of your self, but must take charge of the second life inside of you and MUST bring it into this world, or the government MAY force you to bring the child into the world … then I must be prepared to allow government to interfere with the self determination of anyone, for any reason the government comes up with. 

For this reason, I have sadly concluded based upon government’s prior performances, that no exception can be made.   That government must be kept out of the abortion issue (see also the special note below), period.  That the murder of an unborn human is preferable to allowing government to control a human being against her will.

And as we have already seen, when government bans a desired free market solution (abortions), the free market responds by providing them anyway, under far less desirable circumstances, and at greater detriment to society as a whole.   The free market will always get around government.  And when something is made illegal, the poor suffer the law, while the wealthy and politically connected are kept above the law. 

So what are my solutions? 

1)  All abortion should be legal. 

2)  If you do not like women getting abortions, make your opinions known, shun them, picket abortion centers, and their doctors, hand out pamphlets and put up posters.  Be an activist.  But do not legislate.  It will never work for the reason I said, the free market provides, always. But you can make dramatic reductions in abortions by simple human custom … make it un-cool to get an abortion.  And the market place will mostly dry up.   

3)  If you oppose abortions, you should think about helping with the alternatives: birth control distribution, adoption centers, charities, and expectant mother clinics.  Making it both easy and desirable to bear children rather than discard them, (making it cool) is perfectly fine.   

4)  Abortion should not be seen as a safe procedure without consequences.  It is a medical procedure.  All medical procedures carry risks.  Abortion is far more dangerous than practicing birth control.  And far less stigmatizing.  And there should be a stigma with abortion.  But always remember there may, in the mother’s mind, be a good reason for risking an abortion over a birth.  And in my opinion, this is her decision to make, and ultimately I support that decision. 

People have died due to medical abortions, people have become sterile or had their fertility reduced because of legal abortions.  And women who have had abortions have later lived to regret their decision.  These are potential consequences that should be considered, and everyone lives with the consequences of their actions. 

5)  If you support abortions, you should equally be willing to get out and show your support by the above methods.  I am also guessing, if you support abortions, you would be wise to encourage pregnant women considering an abortion to make up their minds quickly, and stick to a decision, because the longer the fetus goes in term the fewer supporters a woman will have should she choose to abort her baby.  Further, the sooner a woman seeks an abortion the safer, less invasive and less expensive will be the procedure.  While supporting abortion, I would encourage against advocating abortions, like the eugenicists did not so long ago.  Abortion is not a procedure to be taken lightly.

6)  No taxpayer money should be used to support or oppose abortion, ever.  Government has no business in abortion.

One special note:  Government seems to think that when it comes to under aged girls choosing abortion, that they have some power to facilitate the abortion and keep the facts that a girl is choosing to get an abortion, or has had an abortion, from the girl's parents or guardians.  This is horse pucky! 

These responsible parents are held responsible for the upbringing, life and actions of the child.  The government has no right to interact with this child behind the girl's parent's backs.  Whether the government or the girl likes it or not, the parent is the one taking care of the girl.  She is not yet emancipated.  (My definition of child: If a child has left home and is taking care of themselves they are an adult with an adult's rights.  Government however arbitrarily declares you an adult at 18 for most things.)  The parents have the right to be involved with the girl's decision.  Indeed, it is critical they know based upon the health reasons I outlined above.  Government is a criminal facilitator in this case, and should be held responsible for this violation of intruding into a family's business.