Abortion from the Libertarian Perspective: Personhood

Over the years, I have witnessed the volume of the abortion debate reach almost unthinkable levels, yet both sides seem to be shouting past one another instead of having anything resembling a conversation. Those carrying the pro-choice banner are baffled that anyone believes they can dictate what a woman does with her body, while those carrying the pro-life banner are baffled that anyone believes it should be legal to murder an innocent child.

The problem is that both sides are correct, which tells me that we're having the wrong debate.

Instead of fighting over whether a woman has the right to control her body (she does) or whether life begins at conception (it does), I believe a more useful debate revolves around when someone gains (should gain?) legal personhood and to what degree.

While the question sounds esoteric, the reality is that we deal with it every day. If we define a full "person" as someone with all legal rights and protections, then it is clear that there are many human beings who are not full persons. Prisoners have had their personhood restricted due to past behavior. The civilly committed/infirm are restricted due to concerns about future behavior. In times past, African slaves were sub-persons just because we said so.

But notwithstanding those examples, I find the subject of children most interesting when it comes to personhood. Some of the most interesting debates I've seen within the libertarian community are whether physical contact with your child violates the Non Aggression Principle, and if not, why not. The problem is easy to illustrate but more complicated to solve.

Let's say that I'm about to walk into a bar and someone (just a patron, not affiliated with the bar or law enforcement) standing outside walks up to me and tells me not to go in. I look at them like they are insane and go to walk in anyway. They grab me by the arm and yank me back outside. This person has not only violated the NAP, but they have committed a crime (battery). That's because they violated my rights as a full person.

Now let's look at children in detail. Same scenario as before, but now I see my 30 year old son walking into a bar, and I grab him by the arm because I believe I know what's best for him. Same scenario, but my son is now 16 and I don't want him to break the law.

Now instead of a bar, I grab my six year old's arm before they can walk out into a busy street because I fear for their safety. Now I grab my three year old by the arm and pop him on the leg because he took a second cookie when I told him he could only have one. The child wasn't in any danger, but I made physical contact simply because he disobeyed me. When he does it again, instead of popping him on the leg, I struck him in the face with my fist, knocking him unconscious.

Now, I intentionally didn't label any of these situations as good, bad, proper, or improper, because my opinion doesn't really matter. What I was trying to convey was that we as a society, for right or wrong, don't consider minors to be full persons. They don't have full bodily integrity, they can't enter contracts, they can't even reject their parents and move away without a full blown court proceeding that... conveys personhood.

So what does this all have to do with abortion?

In the same way that reasonable people can disagree on the rights of a child of a given age: does the child have the right against being subjected to corporal punishment; do they have the right to enter a contract and marry; I think reasonable people can disagree on the rights of a human in varying stages of development, from conception to when the human brain is fully formed around the age of 25.

In the historical record, we see examples of cultures that not only allowed a parent to kill their children for their behavior, they encouraged it. The modern state has outlawed that. The modern state has decreed that, once a child is born, the parents are required to feed and shelter it, but that wasn't always so. Anyone with a background in the classics is aware of the concept of exposure: an unwanted child wasn't killed outright, but brought out into the wilderness and allowed to die. The sooner we come to terms with the fact that we, fairly arbitrarily, decided that it was legal for a parent to allow an 18 year old to starve (with seven years of brain development left to go), but not a 17 year old, and legal to allow a zygote to starve (by flushing it out of the body), but not someone mere hours after birth, the sooner we can discuss why we have made these distinctions and which we should make going forward.

Now, I appreciate that this doesn't simplify the debate; in fact, I believe it complicates it. It's just as easy to argue by extension that because we aren't allowed to let a newborn die that we shouldn't be allowed to let a zygote die as it is to argue by extension that because we are allowed to let a zygote die we should be allowed to let a newborn die as well. But, at least we would be having a debate vastly more constructive than the one we're having now.

I also appreciate that this little Saturday morning soliloquy of mine likely won't have the least effect on debates even on this board, much less affect the larger political debate, but if you've made it this far, thank you