Advertisements

If Libertarians Want To Protect Women, They Should Be Pro-Choice

The government should keep the option of abortion open and not regulate it harshly.

Advertisements

By Osh|United States

Liberals are generally pro-choice and conservatives are generally pro-life. Libertarians, however, seem split on the issue. Pro-life Libertarians believe that the fetus is it’s own living organism and therefore has the same natural rights to life, liberty, and property, while pro-choice Libertarians believe that the government has no right to decide what a woman wants to do with her child.

Abortion rates have been declining in recent years. In fact, abortion rates have fallen to its lowest since Roe v. Wade was passed. Both sides¬†have celebrated this as “their” victory. Pro-choicers believe that access to contraception and better sexual education caused the drop while pro-lifers believe that the restrictions put in by states caused it. So, who is correct? Oklahoma has one of the strictest abortion laws in the nation, and their abortion rates have dropped so it would seem the pro-lifers are correct.¬†However, California’s, which is considered to be one of the most pro-choice states, abortion rates have also declined.

Another thing to consider is that banning things simply do not work. It’s the same thing with drugs, guns, and prostitution. People will always try to find the way to circumvent the law. With states who have strict regulation on abortion, women travel to a different state to have the abortion performed. If we passed federal laws regulating abortion more, all women will do is either travel to a different country or turn to unsafe alternative abortion methods. Similar to guns and narcotics, a black market for abortion could crop up. These back-door abortions will not offer the safe and sterile environment that a trained medical professional could perform. They could potentially be extremely harmful to the mother and the fetus.

Abortion is a heated topic in American politics. However, the government should keep the option of abortion open and not regulate it harshly. You personally may not get an abortion, and that is completely fine. Nobody is forcing you to. However, the rights of the people do not end where your feelings begin. The option should be available for those who are medically endangered, believe they are financially unable to support the child, or even for those who believe they are just not ready for a child.

 

 

Advertisements
  1. “However, the rights of the people do not end where your feelings begin. The option should be available for those who are medically endangered, believe they are financially unable to support the child, or even for those who believe they are just not ready for a child.”

    1. There’s no constitutional right granting you the ability to kill a fetus.
    2. I agree with about half of those. I think if the mother is in danger by having the baby, then it should be allowed, or if the mother was sexually assaulted. When it comes to finances, there are a load of other solutions – financial assistance, adoption, etc. As for “just not ready for a child,” perhaps then people should keep their bodily urges to themselves.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: