Challenge to Liberty

by Ron Paul

  Those who will not be content with stopping overt acts that produce abortion must direct their energies toward education, religious or otherwise, not lobbying. This is a much heavier responsibility and one that some would like to duck by exerting all their efforts on the politicians. If all it took was a simple piece of legislation to solve this, the most serious problem of the 20th Century, it would be great, but it requires much more on the part of those who would eliminate all abortion.

  Accepting the position outlined is not avoiding the issue or capitulating to the pro-abortion forces, but it’s one of reality and places the responsibility on the individual to ultimately bring about a truly moral and nonviolent society, where all life and liberty are protected.

  CHAPTER VI

  Legal Dilemmas

  Proponents of abortion end up in a trap they set for themselves. That’s why the longer the debate lasts, the more often we will see principled liberals coming over to the right-to-life side.

  Journalist Nat Hentoff rightfully became distressed when it dawned on him that the courts and the ACLU show less compassion for the rights of an innocent defective newborn than they give to the murderous criminals on death row. Legalizing abortion means that the unborn are of no consequence, have no rights, and do not enjoy protection of the law. This position leads to the contradictions that even the most thorough arguments on viability fail to resolve.

  In the hysterical frenzy over drug usage, state laws have been enforced, punishing women who, during their pregnancy, use drugs and deliver a sick, drug-dependent newborn. This obviously is a form of child neglect, but the mother can’t be charged with neglect if it’s not conceded that, prior to birth, a live, legal human being was being abused.

  Those who want strict drug laws enforced and agree that child abuse is not proper have no alternative but to admit that the unborn is an entity deserving legal status.

  If abortion is acceptable and the fetus has no rights, one would have to take the position that there should be no limits on fetal research. And it could all be justified by saying it would help someone else later on—an argument that was not foreign to human experimenters of Nazi Germany. There would be no limits on length of time of the experiment nor the scope, both prior to and following abortion procedures. Proponents of abortion on demand did not intend that research of human fetuses be the result of their efforts, but they have no other choice than to defend this practice.

  This raises not only questions of legality but also of taste, where one realizes that the fats of aborted fetuses can be used in the manufacture of commercial items, such as perfume. The EPA gave a $350,000 grant to an Ohio company for the purpose of collecting fetuses to test their brains, hearts, and other organs as a part of pesticide research.

  If no rights are conferred to the fetus, this means that fetuses can be used as human parts factories. Already in its early stages is the use of brain tissue from live aborted fetuses in the experimental treatment of Parkinson’s Disease.

  With an inability to draw a line in defending the rights of the fetus, the legal problems and medical experimentation is limitless. We can be certain that it will all be justified in the name of doing good.

  What happens to the fetus born alive by mistake and found to be of gestational age where continued life is possible?

  The most dramatic evidence of the dilemma regarding rights that the supporters of abortion face is the situation called wrongful life. What happens to the fetus born alive by mistake and found to be of gestational age where continued life is possible? This situation is not made up, but has actually happened on more than one occasion. Just because it occurs rarely is no reason to downplay the significance of this situation.

  A pregnancy estimated to be at 25 weeks gestation can actually be 29 weeks. If an injection procedure causes an early two-pound-plus live delivery, rather than an abortion of an intrauterine fetal death, the physician faces a problem. If the physician fails to kill the newborn, the patient will be extremely upset and might sue for wrongful life. If the physician smothers or drowns the infant, which has been known to happen, how can the authorities ignore the fact that a willful homicide has been committed?

  Arguing that the physician should, under these circumstances, proceed to preserve the newborn life, the abortionist must answer the question of why that same infant had no right to live moments before birth when the abortionist was being paid a handsome fee for the taking of the life. What was it that made the difference?

  Does merely the location within the uterus disqualify the pre-born from enjoying a right to live? If so, then a nine-pound infant, just prior to birth, has no rights to live either. Pro-abortionists are determined to avoid discussing this. If size and location are important determinants in bestowing rights on human beings, the concept of rights becomes so vague that it has no meaning.

  If the abortionist argues—as some have—that the intent of the operation was to kill the infant, therefore it’s his obligation to prevent wrongful life and his duty is to kill the baby, even if it’s at an age and size where survival is quite possible. This, sadly, is a consistent pro-abortionist position. Consistency in denying the pre-born rights leads to grotesque consequences, inconsistent with the survival of civilized society. A civilization rationalizing the killing of its next generation by the millions cannot morally survive.

  If we can make the executioner of innocent life in the womb wealthy and protect him with our laws, while obtaining permission to perform the operation on teenage mothers, not from the parents or guardians, but from the state, indeed, we should have concern for our future. The state replaces the parent as guardian of children. This tragedy is compounded with tax-paid abortions.

  Surprise and shock are expressed when an unwed mother, shortly after giving birth, casts her newborn into the gutter and leaves it to die. When the mother is caught in this misdeed, the authorities rush to prosecute her for murder.

  But is it any wonder, if all that an entire generation has heard is that pre-born life has no value, that some conclude that newborns don’t qualify for much more?

  If the abortionist can be paid for performing the nasty deed of eliminating life, why should throwing away a newborn be of such great concern to us? Our young people aren’t schizophrenic; but our courts, our laws, our moral standards, and our understanding of life and liberty have become schizophrenic.

  If life is not sacred from start to finish, the carnage will not stop with abortion. If the 20th Century is any indication, it tells us that the same callousness that has given us a century of killing—of hundreds of millions of human beings dying from war and genocide—also is telling us that fetal life and newborn life are of no special value.

  A good abortionist’s job is to kill the fetus, smoothly and neatly, spilling no blood and eliciting no pain, and his job is protected by the law, thus confirming that the fetus has a right to be killed, but not a right to live.

  If the abortionist can be paid for performing the nasty deed of eliminating life, why should throwing away a newborn be of such great concern to us?

  Attorneys are quick to sue doctors who have failed to accomplish an abortion in which wrongful life results. Of course the malpractice has occurred while the baby was still within the uterus, establishing the fact that the unborn child was a person when he was not killed.

  How bizarre can this be? The fetus is a person with legal rights that entitle him to be killed, and if this act has not been efficiently performed, this same individual then at birth can sue the abortionist. But this same fetus, if one claims for it a right to life, is said to have no claim.

  I have never had a supporter of abortion adequately address this matter or answer the question of what should be done with a newborn large enough to survive, born alive as a result of an abortion procedure. The pro-abortionist has no adequate answer.

  The fetus already has established legal protection from injury. As an obstetrician, I am well aware of the fact that I am liable for the care of
intrauterine life. If I do anything to cause injury or death to the fetus, I am answerable in court for the injury.

  If we accept the notion of abortion, it means that the rights of the fetus are completely arbitrary, dictated by the whims of the mother. In one instance the fetus has no rights and can be destroyed at will, and in another, if injury occurs, the fetus—or the mother speaking for the fetus—can sue the guilty party. This is also true in automobile and other types of accidents where the pre-born has been injured or killed.

  This confusion about the legal status of the fetus has led to bizarre medical conduct.

  To have any real meaning, rights cannot be so arbitrary that they can be determined by the mood of the parent. If this were true, child battering would be justified. Legal abortion, obviously makes a mockery out of the notion that a pregnant woman who uses drugs could be convicted of child abuse if she delivers a drug-dependent newborn. This means that the woman has a right to kill her newborn, but it’s illegal to inadvertently injure the pre-born out of neglect or ignorance.

  If one argues that the fetus enjoys no legal protection, it must be explained why a child has inheritance rights if the father dies before the infant is born. Currently the child qualifies, supporting the position that the fetus becomes a legal entity at the time of conception when life begins.

  This confusion about the legal status of the fetus has led to bizarre medical conduct. The physician’s role of preserving life, including fetal life, is universally accepted.

  However, in our major hospitals, we see abortions being performed in the second, and occasionally third, trimesters. Young, healthy, innocent life is snuffed out routinely.

  At the same time, in the same hospital, we see talented medical personnel spending unlimited hours and funds working diligently to save the life of another infant, born prematurely—possibly with multiple defects—which is the same size as the infant aborted just down the hall.

  This demonstrates the inconsistency and irrationality of legalized abortion for the sake of convenience.

  The father’s rights have virtually been ignored in deciding the fate of the unborn. Objections by the father to aborting a fetus are not considered legitimate.

  It’s true that the responsibility the father should assume regarding his offspring is frequently neglected, placing the greater burden on the pregnant woman or mother. But because some fathers neglect their legal and moral responsibility is no justification for denying rights to others. All fathers should be held accountable for the children they helped to bring into the world, or fetuses conceived.

  Placing relative value on fetal life has caused physicians to be callous in their ethical attitudes toward infertility and multiple gestations. Fertility drugs, not infrequently, produce pregnancies with six or more fetuses present.

  …we are placed in this terrible position by man’s interference in the reproductive process…

  Technology has permitted selective abortion to reduce the overcrowding in the uterus and increase the chance for a single fetus to survive. Since genetic testing is not done, it is quite possible that healthy fetuses may be aborted, and ones with a congenital defects left alone. What a choice!

  But we must remember that we are placed in this terrible position by man’s interference in the reproductive process; it is not a result of natural conditions.

  The message here is, if we’re so smart that we can selectively reduce the number of fetuses a woman is carrying—and not without risk—we ought to have the intelligence to avoid the situation altogether by refusing to risk creating multiple gestations or making sure they don’t occur.

  The idea that overcrowding is basically the justification for selective abortion makes one wonder what it might be like, under other conditions, where economic planning and government mismanagement of medicine make it difficult to deliver medical care to the elderly and the poor. We may then hear the same overcrowding argument that some must die in order for others to live.

  The purpose of the state is supposed to be to protect life, liberty, and property and to settle disputes. Today we have a government that protects killing, and at times, even finances it. The growth and scope of our government is totally out of control and fails the test for a limited government in a free society.

  CHAPTER VII

  Libertarian Views

  The Libertarian Party, known as the party of principle, has the most consistent position of any pro-abortion group.

  Roe vs. Wade emphasizes the mother’s privacy but to a degree, qualifies that privacy by varying the accessibility of abortion according to fetal age. Although generally, pro-abortion Libertarians endorse Roe vs. Wade since it legalized abortion, the Libertarian Party has a more intellectually consistent position than Roe. If privacy is the issue, according to the Libertarian supporters of abortion, privacy is honored from the first day of gestation to day of delivery. The woman owns her own body, they argue, and she can do whatever she pleases with it and her fetus up until the day of delivery.

  The pro-abortionist liberal, who muddies the waters with all sorts of rules, regulations, and financing, makes it more difficult to attack. The Libertarian Party position provides a tremendous benefit to pro-lifers in debate. Libertarians don’t hedge on a position just because the majority may cringe from it, and in this instance, at third-trimester abortions, for benefit of convenience.

  The Libertarian Party and its supporters of pro-abortion will say what they mean and mean what they say. Liberals will do whatever they can to avoid responsibility for difficult situations.

  This clear position of what support for abortion really means makes it easy for pro-life libertarians and others to challenge the absurd premise that killing a nine-pound infant one second before birth—because the mother owns her own body—is not an act of aggression.

  Liberals at least concede that this is wrong, bad politics, and personally become squeamish about third-trimester abortions—and rightfully so. Thus the liberal position becomes vulnerable because of its inconsistency.

  The horror of third-trimester abortions, and being forced to accept them as the Libertarian Party platform demands, permits pro-life supporters to show how calloused and uncaring about human life a proponent of abortion must be to endorse it. It’s great to be consistent, but if the premise is wrong, the consequence is serious, and undefendable.

  If third-trimester or any abortion is not an act of aggression, what is it?

  The premise that killing a human fetus, any time before birth, because it’s in the body of a woman who has sole ownership of that body, is not an act of aggression cannot survive open debate. This is true, even with the recognition that the moral climate in this country is less than optimal.

  If third-trimester or any abortion is not an act of aggression, what is it? It is not self-defense. The only thing left is to argue that due to its location, fetal life does not qualify for its right to live. That’s weak! It’s a cop-out and a cover-up for what abortion really is.

  Non-libertarian supporters of abortion try to weasel out of facing the tough situations. They must not be allowed to do this, and their inconsistencies must be used against them to trip them up. The gestational-age argument didn’t work for the Libertarian Party, and we ought not allow the liberals to use it to justify first and second—trimester abortions.

  The Libertarian Party sets its own trap and demonstrates clearly to the world what abortion means—that pre-born life never has value. A good question, not easily answered, is why did the Libertarian Party stray in this one instance from the basic principle of non-aggression?

  It’s hard to answer for all pro-abortion libertarians, but my best guess is that abortion on demand is a pragmatic necessity to suit the lifestyles of many of its members, along with confusion over the privacy issue. Of course, privacy could never be used to justify killing under any other circumstances and, therefore, is a moot argument.

  It’s impossible to meticulously defend personal liberty if life itself is n
ot accorded similar respect.

  A position stating that the deliberate killing of a pre-born infant just prior to birth is not aggression, is hardly appropriate for a party that prides itself on the use of reason, adheres to strict principles, rejects aggression, and demands consistency. The Libertarian Party must be pro-life if it wants to be the party of liberty. It’s impossible to meticulously defend personal liberty if life itself is not accorded similar respect.

  I have done my best to make it clear that in order to preserve liberty, we must recognize the sanctity of all human life, including that of the fetus. We have seen both a distinct erosion of our liberties and a significant loss of respect for human life during this century. If our attitudes do not change, I fear for the next generation and for our country.

  This is not a legal crisis. Simply clarifying the law or legislating strong prohibition against abortion will not solve the problem. However, in an immoral society where fraud and armed robbery are rampant, and laws restricting these acts are difficult to enforce, legalizing these violent acts makes no sense.

  Absence of legal restraint on theft and fraud only encourages the law breakers. The same is true with abortion. Prohibition will never eliminate abortion, but legalization sanctions aggression. Ultimately, the moral standards of a society determine the degree of violence that occurs. Legal prohibition against armed robbery and murder, in itself, is a moral statement. The same is true of prohibition against abortion.

  Since the restrictions against abortion were removed in the 1960s and early 1970s, there is a diminished respect for human life. It is vital that our laws show respect for all life and are written to punish those who initiate aggression against others. Abortion should not be permitted in a free society, even if its prohibition will not prevent abortions.