The Worst Pro-Choice Argument: A Critical Analysis

The Worst Pro-Choice Argument

I read the article above written by Anthony Gregory of the Independent Institute. Gregory is a "pro-choice" Libertarian.

I am pro-life Libertarian; which means, I believe that every human being has the natural right to life including the unborn child. The human baby develops through conception by the choices of the mother and not of its own choice. However, there is the situation of rape when the mother does not have a choice. Notwithstanding, the child again, did not have a choice to develop in the womb and is protected by his/her right to life.

Gregory writes that the worst pro-choice argument is that the baby is "not human" from conception up to birth. Pro-choice advocates have contended that babies can't be labeled human and thus do not have rights to life or liberty. Gregory explains with the following:

Some pro-choicers, who argue that abortion must be permitted exactly because the fetus carries no moral significance compared to the interests of the mother, have taken that premise to a logical conclusion, now explicitly arguing that a baby born has no rights that its mother is bound to respect, assuming the inconvenience and burden of caring for the baby are great enough to warrant killing the infant.

Gregory postulates that the "logical conclusion" of the belief that unborn children are not human and thus have no rights leads to infanticide. Infanticide is the killing of babies after birth. A form of infanticide is the despicable murderous "partial-birth" abortions.

Gregory confirms that he believes the unborn child is human with rights when he says, "Babies are human beings, even before they are born. They have rights even before they can assert them."


However, Gregory oddly argues, "The state should butt out of all abortions and the moral issues should be handled by civil society and within the context of families and individual choice—the only way decisions can be made morally is if they are made voluntarily."


As a pro-choice Libertarian, Gregory believes that the State should stay out intervening between a woman's choice and the life of the unborn child who has rights. He used the example of the theory that children are the "property" of the parents. He disagrees with this and believes they have rights and even have the right to runaway. But the point of contention is when the child can "assert" those rights. Gregory explains:

Babies have a right not to be killed, tortured, abused, beaten, and so forth—and children in general are self-owners whose limited capacity to vindicate their own rights temporarily delegates authority to their parents, but does not mean they cannot ultimately vindicate their rights when they have the capacity to assert them.

I guess that the unborn child can't "assert" his/her right to life, so the mother can exercise authority over the baby and have the baby killed? What is more, he contradicts himself by criticizing the theory that the child is the property of parents but simultaneously insinuating the unborn child is the property of the child whom the mother can dispose of. But if you read the passage, it appears that he is arguing against the "worst pro-choice argument" with the child property theory. So, it is somewhat confusing.

The following was my reply to Mr. Gregory:

I agree that the argument becomes erroneous and despicable when it claims the baby is not human up to third trimester and eventual birth. Especially once after delivery and is murdered. It is disturbing that there are heartless humans like President Obama who support infanticide. I am a Libertarian who believes that individual right to life and liberty extends to human life in the womb. One of government’s role is to protect life and liberty.Mr. Gregory, I do find a big contradiction with your opposition to the theory that children are the “property” of the parents; however, you argue in essence that the baby, who you agree is human and has rights, is the property of the mother and that she can dispose of him/her without State intervention. It seems that you agree that the State can intervene to protect children from their parents and if they run away. However, the State can’t intervene to protect the unborn baby? I agree with the Liberal argument that counters your’s with, “How can the State intervene with after birth abortions if they can’t before birth?” Your argument becomes invalid.It is the easier route to say that the State must stay out of everything and allow the Individual to make his/her moral decisions about everything. As a Libertarian, I am passionate about Individual Liberty but also about the Natural Right to Life. Your Liberty ends when you want to trample on other peoples liberties and to harm others. Harm includes killing life. The State has a moral obligation to step in and protect life, even in the mother’s womb.

This article is proof that there are Libertarian pro-choice people. However, I am a Classical Liberal or Libertarian who believes Liberty and life are Natural Rights that must be protected by the State. Protection of life and liberty is a duty and purpose of government. I know that Gregory thinks that moral choices like killing your unborn child should be left solely to the individual. Well, he's wrong. Libertarianism believes that individual liberty should free from government intervention as much as possible until you use your liberty to deny others their liberty and to harm others. When a mother chooses to kill life inside them, it is harm to a human and the unadulterated denial of the right to life for the unborn child.