The Libertarian Case Against Abortion
A Defence of the Unborn
Friends, fellow Australians,
There's a common belief in our political discourse, from the major parties in Canberra to the crossbench, that to be a libertarian, a classical liberal, or simply a believer in individual freedom, one must be "pro-choice" on abortion. This is a profound misunderstanding of our core principles.
Libertarianism is built on a simple, yet powerful foundation: the Non-Aggression Principle. This principle states that it is fundamentally wrong to initiate force or violence against another person. It is the bedrock of a free and civilised society. It is this very principle that, when applied with consistency and intellectual honesty, leads to a staunchly pro-life conclusion.
The central question is not about choice, but about the protection of individual rights. The debate hinges on one critical point: when does a human being's right to life begin? From a purely scientific and biological standpoint, a new, distinct human life begins at conception. This isn't a matter of religious doctrine; it's a matter of fact. At that moment, a unique individual with their own DNA exists.
Therefore, if we accept that a human life begins at conception, and we hold true to the Non-Aggression Principle, then abortion cannot be seen as anything other than an act of lethal aggression against an innocent human. It is a direct violation of the most fundamental right of all—the right to life.
Now, the argument for "bodily autonomy" is a powerful one, and one that libertarians rightly cherish. But rights are not absolute; they end where another's begin. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Similarly, the right to control one's own body does not extend to the right to end the life of another innocent, dependent human being residing within it.
A prenatal child is not a trespasser. They are there as a direct result of their parents' voluntary actions. This creates a profound responsibility. Libertarians champion personal responsibility, and in this case, it means parents have a duty of care to their children—a duty that does not begin at birth. They have no right to evict a child from the womb and leave them to die, just as they have no right to abandon a newborn on a doorstep.
In a just society, the law must be a shield for the innocent and the vulnerable. To advocate for liberty while allowing the destruction of the most voiceless members of our community is an intellectual inconsistency. Libertarians are rightly skeptical of granting the state arbitrary power, especially the power to decide who is and is not a person with rights. The law must not grant or revoke personhood based on subjective criteria like age, size, or stage of development.
This is not a call for government overreach, but for the government to fulfil its most essential and legitimate function: protecting the individual rights of every single person, born and unborn. The libertarian case is clear: we must stand for the rights of all, and that begins with the fundamental right to life.