I am of the view that perhaps the greatest challenge a libertarian will face in defining their politics is when faced with the argument on abortion. A debate that has raged on for literally decades, it is perhaps one of the more troubling subjects with which some libertarians will struggle to get to grips. For the longest time I would have considered myself to be “pro-choice” on this argument, but it is up until recently, seeing rather distasteful stories regarding late term abortions of disabled children, or even a recent controversy about doctors allowing the illegal abortion of babies because of their gender, that I have found myself struggling to maintain that position. It is that which has compelled me to have a go at this piece, to try and explain the difficulty I have faced in reconciling my position on the subject while at the same time admitting that at this moment, I frankly don’t know where I stand. Abortion has not really been that much of a concern for me, what with not having a cervix and all, so I’ve generally just kept away from the debate altogether, but as I’ve grown more politically aware, it’s an argument you can hardly avoid. Abortion is almost universally accepted, something we should just appreciate women should be permitted to do and that’s that, no further discussion, end of story. But although this may be the broad position of many of the British public, I don’t see things as that black and white.

As time has gone on, my views on it have changed, when I see stories involving babies being born prematurely at 22 weeks and surviving, when the abortion limit is 24 weeks at which a mother is still allowed to abort the foetus, I cannot help but be outraged. It isn’t helped at times when the majority who seem to oppose abortion are of the far-right religious variety providing the left-leaning pro-choicers with simple ammunition by which they may avoid the seriousness of the debate and go straight to ridiculing their opponent. The fact is, however, that more babies are being born extremely early and the survival rate is increasing for such premature births. I’m not a religious person, my view isn’t based on some form of religious fanaticism, my view is based on the right to life and the right for life to be protected, no matter how young that life may be. I’m sure that, if the baby who was born at 22 weeks was killed by the mother a few days after her birth, there would be uproar, and perhaps even a murder conviction. But what’s the difference whether or not the baby is in the womb?

The inevitable question any person who opposes abortion faces is “what if the woman was raped?” Well unlike those who may staunchly oppose abortion on the notion that “life begins at conception” I do not hold this view. I still believe abortion may be deemed acceptable in very limited circumstances, including if the birth of the child would put the mother’s and child’s life in danger, if the child has an extremely severe disability and it is determined without question that the child will not live any longer than a few days and those days will be ones of suffering, or if the mother is raped, then abortion may be acceptable, but the term limits must be reduced. If it’s possible for a baby to be born at 21 weeks and survive, then this must be seen as a baby like any other, and they must be cared for and treated and their survival seen as a top priority as would the birth of a baby born at 9 months.

Medical advances have come a long way since the enactment of the laws in the UK so it is perfectly reasonable to call for a reduction in the term limits during which abortion may be accepted. I am not a medical expert, so I cannot judge on the best reduction on limit, but considering there are children that have been born at 21 weeks and may have possibly survived if they weren’t refused treatment, the limit should be less than 20 weeks. One thing I will personally, and inevitably, face in this debate is when women will say to me “it’s my body, it’s my choice” and expect the argument to be instantly dropped. While I have presented reasonable alternatives to the current abortion laws, I will briefly answer this inevitable argument that will be put to me.

You are right. It is your body. You made a personal choice to have sex, you got pregnant in the process and you have a baby growing inside you. A life that poses almost limitless potential, yet you want to take its life on the basis that it’s “your body.” While it is your body and while that child was born from you, would it give you the right to instantly rescind your responsibility to your child if say, it reached the age of two years, you became fed up of being a parent and decided to kill your child but you saw it as acceptable because said child was your creation? Such an argument would be considered extreme, but I think it is necessary to make the point that just because you decide you no longer want the child, or do not like its gender, does not give you the right to take away that life. In the cases of rape, it would be reasonable to assume that most rapes are reported almost immediately following the offence, or within a few weeks of the crime being committed, which would fall within a reduced term limit allowing legal abortion.

I am very clear on my position of a person to make their own choices that affects their own lives and for the state to have no involvement in those choices so long as they do not affect the liberty of others. I hope that, through my brief explanation of the difficulties surrounding the abortion debate, people will come to understand why I find this debate in particular, so difficult. Ultimately, this depends on your definition of what you perceive to be a “life” in the literal or moral sense. This is perhaps why a lot of religious people take the “life begins at conception” position, but my stance is based more on the science. If it is possible for the child to survive outside the mother’s womb with medical assistance, then this may be deemed in the literal scientific sense a life, and your liberty to decide whether that life can be destroyed or not is no longer valid, just as you have no right to take away my life because you may disagree with my views, you have no right to take away the life of a baby to which you gave birth, and has survived, purely because you see such a child as an inconvenience.

In the case of a late discovery of pregnancy past the abortion term limits, abortion is not the only option as adoption would be preferable for perhaps both the mother and the child. If the mother considers that she does not have the means with which to raise the child, rather than take away the child’s right to an existence, perhaps she should provide that child with an opportunity of a life with another family that may be able to give them the chance in life which you consider you may not be able to provide. There are circumstances in which I deem abortion to be reasonable and acceptable, but as you will have gathered from reading this blog, it’s an argument with which I continue to struggle. There is no definitive answer to this debate, and while some will rage on until the end of their existence, it will never be settled, but it is important to recognise that on whichever side of the fence you sit, there is no right or wrong answer.

Cross posted from: The World Through My Specs