Challenge to Liberty

by Ron Paul

  The fact that human life starts at conception is not debatable. If one wants to cling to the pro-abortion argument of the 1960s, that after conception there is a glob, one then has to explain what the glob is. It is conceded by most pro-abortion supporters that life does, indeed, start at conception, but in the early stages is not viable or meaningful. That’s a different argument.

  By qualifying life, it’s conceded that life, indeed, does exist from conception on. Since the glob theory and the meaningful life theory do not challenge the fact that life begins at conception in a serious way, the debate must be reduced to whether the pre-born deserves protection of the law.

  This is where Murray Rothbard is very honest and avoids trying to prove that life does not exist, or it’s life that is just partially human. His position, that the fetus is an aggressor and parasite, is much more intellectually honest and recognizes the scientific fact of when life begins. All proponents of abortion should accept his position if they are intellectually honest.

  I have concluded that it is difficult to accept any other point in time when a human life begins other than at conception.

  Since I can’t accept the idea that the fetus is an aggressor, pre-born human life is equally as valuable as new-born human life. The fetus, therefore, qualifies for protection of the law.

  As a physician, I am very much aware that the fetus is not only a medical entity, which I have a responsibility to protect, but legally I know that any injury stemming from my neglect would prompt a hefty lawsuit from the fetus when born.

  Inheritance cases have been settled by recognizing that infants, born after the death of a father, still qualify to share in the father’s estate. Abortion or injury to the fetus from accidents are justifiable reasons for parents to sue those responsible for injury. Uterine life, in this circumstance, has been protected for years and establishes sound legal precedent for the legality of the fetus. The helpless fetus deserves just as much protection of the law as does the helpless newborn.

  In our system of government—at least until recently—essentially all laws against acts of aggression were written by the individual states, not the federal government. The federal government doesn’t mandate a unified legal code throughout the states for first, second, or third-degree murder or manslaughter. Each state writes its own and many laws vary from one state to another.

  The helpless fetus deserves just as much protection of the law as does the helpless newborn.

  If one believes in common law and the common-law jury, more flexibility is allowed the jury, permitting it to evaluate all the evidence, all the circumstances, and the law itself. Mitigating circumstances are taken into consideration. The same should be true for penalties for abortion.

  Having run for the Presidency in 1988, as the Libertarian Party’s candidate against George Bush, I was generous with my criticism of him and his policies—whenever they could be ascertained.

  But on one occasion his critics treated him unfairly when he admitted during a debate that he had no specific penalties worked out in his mind for those who performed abortions if they were made illegal.

  But he was right: he has no authority as President to decide whether the penalty ought to be the electric chair or a $50 fine. That’s hardly the role of the President in our system of government.

  No one ever asked Bush, or me—and I, too, was frequently asked what the penalty ought to be for performing abortions—what I thought the penalty should be for petty theft, armed robbery, embezzlement, third-degree manslaughter or second-degree murder. That’s not the prerogative of the President.

  These penalties are all worked out by the laws of each state and frequently moderated by opinions of judges and juries. The actual penalty is of less consequence than the message sent by either legalization or prohibition of abortion. That’s what will signify whether there’s a consensus for recognizing the sanctity of life. That’s what counts.

  All acts of aggression toward the fetus are a violation of individual rights.

  At the national level, the Supreme Court certainly has the authority to address this issue. The proper ruling ought to be to uphold laws that prohibit abortion. Legislating, in detail, what states can or cannot do, as was done with Roe vs. Wade, is certainly not what the Founders intended the function of the Supreme Court to be.

  The court is designed to protect an inalienable right to life, liberty, and property. The fetus is alive, human, and a legal entity and deserves protection, and the courts should rule in that manner. All acts of aggression toward the fetus are a violation of individual rights. The courts also have the authority to review penalties provided by state laws as to whether they are cruel and unusual.

  Congress has no authority to write laws regarding abortions and should not do so. Certainly Congress should not be financing abortions—and for that matter they ought to be out of the medical business entirely.

  Since our whole system of government—Congress, the Administration, and the Courts—was designed to protect life and liberty, I find it rather ironic to see the folks in Washington spending most of their time doing the opposite—stirring up international troubles, fighting undeclared illegal wars, stealing property from one to give to another, and deciding personal habits of citizens.

  To see money taken from one group of Americans—many who for religious and/or political reasons vehemently condemn abortion—and given to another for the purpose of snuffing out a new life, should alert us to the seriousness of the crisis we face.

  Arriving at this point, where theft through government’s confiscatory taxes is used to carry out killing, is a double whammy against liberty. At least all Libertarians agree that government financing of abortion is horrid; that’s more than the Republicans or Democrats can claim.

  A libertarian society permits laws prohibiting acts of aggression, but this has to be achieved without creating a police state. Already, we see the beginning of a police state with our regulatory agencies and administrative laws and courts.

  …all Libertarians agree that government financing of abortion is horrid…

  These efforts are generally designed to preempt wrongdoing in economic affairs, regulate business, and protect the consumers. But in the last 50 years, these agencies have grown to a gargantuan size, and the larger they get, the more influential and ruthless they become. Many carry guns, including members of the FBI, the CIA, the DEA, the IRS, OSHA, and the EPA.

  Except for some regulations of radio and television through licensing, the media essentially has been fortunate enough not to be treated like a manufacturer of consumer products. The media would rightfully scream if government agents monitored their product in order to prevent libel and slander as the regulators regulate businessmen.

  Assuming government agents were efficient and prevented libel and slander through preemptive policing of all content, the idea of a free press and free expression would become a joke. Liberty would be thrown out in the process on the pretense of protecting innocent people from potential libel.

  No one proposes this, I hope, because the danger is clear. Everyone knows that the laws against slander and libel exist and recourse in the courts is available to the victims. It’s sad that liberals, who defend free expression rather well, won’t grant the same liberty to a businessman who manufactures consumer goods.

  It’s conceded by liberals, conservatives, and libertarians that theft should be illegal and if one is victimized the police should arrest the thief, and that the courts, the legislators, and the juries should mete out the punishment.

  Even if it could be proven that with a policeman stationed in each of our houses, robbery could be prevented, it’s clear that costs would be prohibitive and privacy would be destroyed.

  Regardless of how valuable our free society is, it’s never justifiable to enslave through military conscription the 18-year-old to fight for the freedom of the 45-year-old. It’s never justifiable to put a policeman or a camera in every house with the intent of protecting li
fe and property. It’s never justifiable to monitor newspapers and the electronic media for the purpose of preventing libel and slander—prior to the fact. It’s not justifiable (although now legal) to regulate commercial ventures preemptively to prevent injury to the consumer.

  And it’s not justifiable, practical, or wise to think government coercive laws, snooping and regulations will prevent abortion at one to four weeks of gestation that can be accomplished with modern science and recently developed medication.

  A Supreme Court case in February of 1989 involving Joshua DeShaney and a social worker, speaks to this issue. Four-year-old Joshua was beaten into a coma and was left with permanent brain damage by his father. A social worker had visited the family the day before the beating due to reports of child abuse.

  Joshua’s mother filed suit against the state government and the social worker arguing that the government failed to protect her son from injury. Her contention was that no state could “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” This obviously was a new twist to the due process clause of the Constitution.

  Obviously the father was guilty of violent behavior, in this instance, and deserved punishment. But the question the court had to answer was whether government employees (police) are liable and obligated to protect citizens from potential harm, when warned of potential danger.

  This was a good test case, and fortunately, the court ruled wisely. Conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist correctly wrote for the majority that the due process clause was intended, “…to protect the people from the state, not to insure that the state protected them from each other”. The state, Rehnquist argued can, “…not become the permanent guarantor of an individual’s safety.”

  This case is applicable to the abortion issue concerning state limits to prevent violence directed toward the fetus. In the first two to three weeks of pregnancy, the diagnosis of pregnancy is difficult. A perfect legal and medical diagnosis of pregnancy, especially prior to the time the first menstrual period is due after conception, cannot be achieved without government intrusion beyond all comprehension.

  Proving that an abortion has or has not been performed with an abortifacient in the first three weeks of pregnancy would be nothing less than a social and legal nightmare. During this time, it will truly become a personal, moral decision by the pregnant woman. It would fall to the family, friends, spouse, and the church to deal with this period of time in convincing individuals whether life is of such value that abortion should not be done. Government, surely, will never be able to achieve that goal in these early weeks of pregnancy.

  This no more condones abortion than being opposed to social workers flooding our homes in an attempt to prevent child battering condones child abuse.

  Child abuse is a serious problem and should not go unpunished, but the assumption must be made that most parents do not batter their children. Corporal punishment by parents makes more sense than the government’s owning the children, running day-care centers, and controlling the entire development of the child through government schools. This is what leads to youth brigades and youth corps of the communist and fascist type.

  We cannot endorse government control of children, nor the snooping of government for the purpose of preventing child abuse. When it’s blatant and overt, the community and the government have the responsibility to protect the life and liberty of the child.

  Conservative right-to-lifers have already demanded the ban of the abortifacient, RU486, as if the mere banning of this drug would do something to prevent its use. All it would do is raise its price and increase the chances that contamination and poorly measured forms of the drug would be used, causing more complications. One only needs to look at the ridiculous policy of outlawing hard drugs and the total failure of making drugs illegal to realize this approach would only lead to more trouble, not less.

  Those who argue for banning RU486 should consider the lack of logic in this argument. Conservatives never proposed the banning of guns because criminals use guns to rob and kill. “Guns don’t kill,” they argue, “people kill.” Drugs don’t abort, people who use certain drugs cause abortions.

  No one has proposed that the surgical curette or the suction curette be banned in order to stop abortions. Everyone knows that these instruments can be used for positive medical purposes.

  As a right-to-life libertarian, it wouldn’t make sense for me to argue for the legalization of hard drugs and call for the banning of abortifacients. When hard drugs are used irresponsibly and lead to the injury of other people, these aggressive acts should not be tolerated and should be punished by law. The same should be true with an abortifacient.

  If medical doctors or others are deliberately prescribing and injecting drugs or using mechanical means to destroy a known biologically and legally identifiable living human being, their acts must be construed as acts of aggression and should be punishable by law.

  It would be ideal if government could protect us all from potential harm without any violation of our civil liberties. But government can’t, and never will be able to, without serious infringement of our liberties. In the first place, all libertarians would challenge the entire concept of government social workers meddling in domestic problems.

  And if this principle is carried to its logical conclusion, we would need a lot more than just social workers sticking their noses into our affairs. We would need an entire army of police, as was seen on television in post-Tiananmen Square, China, and in all other totalitarian countries.

  Yet, we already see this concept creeping into our own society. Government agents from the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, the IRS, the DEA, the FDIC, and the SEC are snooping all the time, running sting operations and preempting every move in the financial world. But it’s dangerous and can’t be an accepted procedure for promoting social changes.

  Conservatives and liberals support government coercion to bring about social economic changes. Libertarians do not.

  Conservatives and liberals support government coercion to bring about social economic changes. Libertarians do not. Both Republicans and Democrats support abortion and right to life. Both will be generous in the use of government force in finding a solution to the most significant political discussion in the United States since the debate and ensuing war over slavery 125 years ago.

  Only a libertarian approach can make sense out of the complexity of the issue, using government only to protect fetal life against outward acts of aggression while depending on noncoercive solutions in the area where policing and preventing abortion are an impossibility without the total sacrifice of our liberty.

  CHAPTER VIII

  Abortion Challenges Liberty

  The most significant social issue of the 20th Century to challenge the concept of individual liberty is the abortion issue.

  The bitter fight over the legality, morality, and practicality of abortion will be carried over into the next century. It will likely lead to a violent struggle between the opposing forces.

  Our answer to the question of whether pre-born human life is of special value, qualifying for legal protection of the law, will reflect the importance we place on the essence of liberty and the sanctity of life.

  Our technology is obviously ahead of our ability to apply moral and ethical standards to today’s problems.

  The brave new world has arrived.

  How brave we really are, casually accepting man’s ability to tamper with life and selectively choose which small human being should live or die is a matter of opinion reflecting our belief about abortion.

  Our technology is obviously ahead of our ability to apply moral and ethical standards to today’s problems. Many of them were unheard of just a few years ago.

  Nuclear bombs are an obvious threat to the human race if their destructive force is not contained by those in charge. Nuclear power, nonetheless, may answer the needs of the world for a cheap, safe, and clean energy source. The decision on how it will be used
will come from either men of good will and wisdom or be left in the hands of the immoral and evil.

  A pat answer that nuclear power is inherently evil and must be abolished is no more logical than the proposal that we need tens of thousands of nuclear warheads to defend against a contrived enemy. If all nuclear power is basically developed for mass destruction and not productive energy, the human race will not survive.

  Our ability to interfere with life’s processes can be used for good or for evil.

  And so it is with abortion and its associated medical technology. Our ability to interfere with life’s processes can be used for good or for evil.

  If drugs and medical technology are designed for the sole purpose of killing in an abortion procedure, and their positive good in infertility and treating of disease is only a secondary thought, civilization will suffer greatly.

  The truly brave may be those who are more cautious about the use of government coercion and show concern for man’s destructive nature than the ones willing to stockpile nuclear weapons needlessly, or complacently accepting standards that fail to place special value on all viable human life.

  The brave don’t abort.

  Pro-lifers are enthusiastic supporters of adoption, an alternative offered to those women who choose not to have an abortion and choose not to raise their own child.

  Rowe vs. Wade explicitly designated that a licensed physician is to perform the abortion. Even with today’s massive government intervention in medicine, it’s still permissible for a midwife to deliver a baby. But it’s ironic that the state deems it necessary to mandate more supervision and medical training of the abortionist to kill a fetus than for delivery of a term infant.