Libertarian perspectives on abortion

Abortion is a uniquely controversial issue. Among libertarians, this debate consists of multiple questions, including:
 * whether abortion should be illegal
 * if so, at what level of government this should be enforced
 * whether or not the government should fund abortions

The vast majority of libertarians are agreed on the latter question, believing that government should not fund personal activity, especially activity of such a controversial nature. However, as to whether abortion should be legal, they are split as equally as the mainstream. Many libertarians believe that a woman's ownership of her own body, and therefore her right to control it, includes her right to terminate her pregnancy without any interference. Others believe the fetus has a human right to life, and that an abortion is the initiation of fatal force against a helpless victim.

Pro-choice positions
Though not accepted by all libertarians, Objectivist philosophy has had considerable influence on libertarian thought. One website run by the Objectivist-influenced Capitalism Magazine is an example of the pro-choice position:


 * A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb.

Pro-life positions
Libertarians For Life notes that the principles of both the United States Libertarian Party and Objectivist ethics require some obligation to children and counter with an appeal to the non-aggression principle:


 * Non-aggression is an ongoing obligation: it is never optional for anyone, even pregnant women. If the non-aggression obligation did not apply, then earning money versus stealing it and consensual sex versus rape would be morally indifferent behaviors. The obligation not to aggress is pre-political and pre-legal. It does not arise out of contract, agreement, or the law; rather, such devices presuppose this obligation. The obligation would exist even in a state of nature. This is because the obligation comes with our human nature, and we acquire this nature at conception.

U.S. Libertarian Party position
The U.S. Libertarian Party platform states that "abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides". It holds that abortion should be legal but neither state-funded or required because "the government should be kept out of the question".

Rather than pre-judging the solution in specific cases as abortion law does, the Libertarian Party says the real solution is for citizens to look to the voluntary and subsidiary institutions – person, family, religion – actually competent in the matter noting that people are often hindered from sensible acts by government policies with effects such as encouraging abortions, making adoptions difficult, hindering contraception, or turning child support into a lucrative racket.

In this, its position is dissimilar to that of another institution claiming the support of natural law: the Roman Catholic Church, which allows abortions for medical reasons and sanctions misdeeds through excommunication. According to libertarian critics, the church errs in attempting to enlist the government in creating punishments not just for Catholics but for everyone, subverting its own doctrine of subsidiarity – that problems should be solved by the institutions closest to those involved.

Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party candidate for President for 1996 and 2000, stated his opposition to Roe v. Wade and believed that abortion is wrong, but that there is no federal authority to deal with it.

Other views
A number of libertarians split from conventional positions. For example, some do not doubt the authority or morality of government passing laws against abortion, but claim that such laws would be futile in stopping abortion, as drug laws are allegedly futile in stopping drug use. Others fear that an abortion ban would start a "War on Abortion," parallel to the "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror," which many libertarians view as major threats to individual liberty.

Dr. Walter Block, economist at Loyola University, offers an alternative to the standard choice between "pro-life" and "pro-choice": what he terms evictionism. According to this moral theory, the act of abortion must be conceptually separated into the acts of (a) eviction of the fetus from the womb; and (b) killing the fetus. Building on the libertarian stand against trespass and murder, Block maintains the legitimacy of the first act, but, in certain circumstances, not of the second act. When the following conditions are met, the woman may legally abort: (a) the fetus is not viable outside the womb; or (b) the woman has announced to the world her abandonment of the right to custody of the fetus; and (c) no one else has "homesteaded" that right by offering to care for the fetus.

The Pro-Choice Libertarians web page lists some reasons libertarians oppose government involvement in the abortion issue: "The government is the problem, not the solution, including in this issue; it's my body and the government should keep its laws off it; people can decide this issue in their private, contractual communities; only voluntary means of convincing a woman to have a child are libertarian; the fetus is not a human being with rights until it is born (based on a number of rationales) and/or only the mother confers rights on the fetus; even if the fetus has rights, and abortion is murder, the rights of the mother to evict trespassers -- for whatever reasons -- through abortion are greater (based on a number of rationales); the decision on whether it is murder is based on political power and adult women have more power; it is wrong to force a deformed baby or unwanted child to come into the world."