The Right to Starve Your Kids
Ron Paul only has one stance I can think of that I fundamentally disagree with, and that’s his stance on abortion.
Natural rights, the cornerstone of libertarianism, comes down to a single issue: property. Given the absolute right to own and defend justly owned property, we inevitably reach the non-aggression principle which states that no one may initiate force or violence against the just property of another.
These fundamental rights make no judgement as to the morality of how you use them. Anyone can spew hateful, vile, reprehensible speech which is racist, obscene, vulgar, and offensive. They can express a desire for the extermination of a class of people, insult your mother’s physique, praise a murderous dictator like Hitler. We may find it offensive and wrong, but they have the right. Or, put another way, we have no right to interfere. If someone is not aggressing against us, we have no standing under Natural Law to stop their activity.
So the only real question is, what defines aggression? The trespass or destruction of your property against your will. Is it an aggressive act to walk by a man bleeding to death in the street without stopping to help? No, it is not. We may say it is reprehensible and vile, that a man who would do such a thing is the antithesis of morality. But what we may not say is that he does not have the right to withhold his aid.
If that person on the street is a child, it does not change this fact. If that child is the man’s son, it does not change this fact. If that child was previously inside a woman’s womb it does not change this fact.
It may be repulsive to be forced to accept, but in order to have a consistent view of rights no one may be forced to assist or care for another against their will. Not even for the sake of a child. The sick may not force doctors to cure them, the hungry may not force farmers to feed them, the poor may not force the rich to fund them. Being forced to provide for a child is no different, in spite of our natural and instinctual desire to defend and protect them, in spite of their innocence or lack of ability to fend for themselves.
Which makes my argument against abortion simple. Regardless of the consequence to the unborn child, it doesn’t have a right to the mother’s womb. If she no longer wants it, she is within her rights to remove it as it is now trespassing. From a rights point of view she has no obligation to consider the consequences of expressing her right to her property in her own body. Again, we may morally berate her; but we may not use force to keep her from aborting.
So if I am saying that parents are not aggressing against children by aborting them or withholding care; am I saying parents everywhere who think their kids cost too much should just stop feeding them, or should cancel a pregnancy because it’s inconvenient? Of course not. They should sell them.
Posted by wobbles on Friday, October 14, 2011