Why Libertarian is Pro-Life and Pro-Life is Libertarian

The pro-life, anti-abortion cause is generally seen as a cause of the conservative right. It is generally believed that liberals and libertarians cannot be pro-life. It is unfortunate that many conservatives think that only conservatives can be pro-life, because there are many pro-life liberals and libertarians. It is also unfortunate that many radical pro-choicers in both liberal and libertarian ranks seem to want to march anybody out of the party who is not radically pro-choice, accusing them of trying to impose their will on women. Her body, her choice, is what they believe.

Thankfully, in recent times some pro-life liberals and libertarians have made themselves known. On the liberal side, I think of Christian progressives like Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis. While I don't agree with their politics on many other issues, particularly economic issues, I believe that they are good ambassadors for why one does not have to be conservative to be pro-life. On the libertarian side we have people like Ron Paul and 2008 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr, both ardently pro-life. In general, I would say that there is more openness to the pro-life cause among libertarians, because while the majority pro-choice Libertarian Party will nominate a pro-life candidate, I do not expect that Democrats would do the same. However, I see pro-life camps growing in both the left and the libertarian movement.

In a sense, I think that libertarians and liberals often are more compatible with the pro-life cause than conservatives. Conservatives are often very pro-war, and what, I might ask, is pro-life about that? Liberals and libertarians are often also very concerned about the rights of people that nobody else cares about, and the unborn are the weakest of these. It is on economic issues where liberals and libertarians differ, but pro-lifers on both sides raise good talking points. Pro-life liberals often emphasize how they want more social programs which they believe will help people afford not to have abortions. Pro-life libertarians emphasize how libertarianism's central axiom is the non initation of force, and how abortion violates this.

Now, I think that we non-conservative pro-lifers have to stick together to demonstrate how you don't have to be a conservative or vote Republican to be pro-life, but I am a libertarian after all, and not a liberal. As a pro-life libertarian, I believe that libertarianism and pro-life are not only mutually compatible but mutally reinforcing from a philosophical standpoint. I hope that all libertarians take a serious look at the pro-life cause and that all pro-lifers take a look at libertarianism. I am not asking every pro-lifer to become a libertarian and every libertarian to become pro-life, because as much as I would like that it isn't my place to tell people what to believe, I'd just ask everyone to look at the facts.

Only libertarians believe in the complete sanctity of individual rights. As much as liberals, conservatives, and moderates talk about individual rights, in many regards this commitment is purely utilitarian on their part. Libertarians believe firmly in the non-aggression axiom, meaning it is totally unacceptable for individuals, groups, and governments to initiate the use of physical force against any peaceful human being for any reason whatsoever, no matter how good that reason may seem. Liberals, conservatives and others are perfectly willing to use government to initiate force against peaceful individuals and in many cases would gladly sacrifce and individual's life if they thought the cause was great enough. Atomic bomb, anyone? It was a liberal president who dropped it on Japan; just imagine what a neocon would do if he got the chance.

Abortion violates individual rights, and libertarians should wake up to this. It initiates force. Yes, it is force to state that a woman may not have an abortion, but we are defending an innocent life. In most cases a woman has chosen to get pregnant. As for cases of rape, I am not sure what I would do and I admit that this is shaky, but those who would use this most tiny percentage of pregnancies to invalidate my argument are simply trying to lead away from the main point. The bottom line is that most women choose to get pregnant, and the infant has not initiated force against anybody. Libertarians are always looking to defend people's rights, even people that are hated by society, like marijuana users. How can we then not defend the rights of an innocent infant?

The case against abortion should be part and parcel with libertarianism. If libertarianism is an ideology that is always and everywhere against force, then how can we ignore the greatest example of initiation of force in our society. It is abortion, not government, that represents the largest violation of individual rights that takes place in our society. The case for libertarianism should be part and parcel with the pro-life cause. If the pro-life cause is about defending the right to life, then why not side with the only political ideology that takes a hardline, completely no compromise stance on the inalienability of this right. What needs to happen is that pro-lifers need to get serious about the right to life in all areas of life and libertarians need to get serious about the definition of what that means. It is time for pro-lifers and libertarians to join hands to fight for common goals.