9 votes

Would Abortion (exist) in a Free-Society?

All you anti-abortion folk are fighting for a free-society so this is an important meditation

Would Abortion (exist) in a Free-Society?

The Short-Answer is YES as "medical information / procedures" are "truly" private in a free-society. The only reason you know about how many abortions are performed is because of "gov't invasion" (census, licensure, certifications, accounting, and IRS).

The Long-Answer (and this is important for you "meddlers").
---having an opinion on a topic or "appealing" to people's virtue is great; but think of the leviathan you must un-bridle to even "know" that one abortion has occurred, it is the end of privacy regarding medical procedure.

Since RP is an Misesian (not a Rothbardian) Scholar, by his own admission -- it is important to understand what a Misesian Society would look like.

1st the NAP (non-aggression principle). This is a Rothbardian concept that Mises was VEHEMENTLY against. The NAP is a value-added philosophy and Mises was adamant that a free-society must be "value-free."

Value-added (long story short) requires some levels of "force" and "intervention." It is ideological, which according to all world history leads to "bigger gov't intervention" and never toward self-rule.

2nd in a Mises-style Free-Society the consumer-rules -- He called this Consumer-Sovereignty.

For the consumer to rule the consumer can be the ONLY influence on the corporation and he can be the only economic "salvation" as well.

Under Corporatism you have 3 possible revenue streasm:
1) Consumers-who-Purchase
2) Consumers-who-Invest
3) Consumers-who-Abdicate (Vote and Lobby)
---Abdication Gives Rise to Gov't Intervention
----->Gov't Intervenes (historically) on behalf of Wealthy Interests
-------:*Predatory Lending (to turn consumers into borrowers)
-------:*Regulatory Advantages
-------:*Barriers to Competitive Entry
-------:*Taxes and Tax Loopholes
-------:*Currency Monopoly
-------:*Price Setting

Under a Misesian Free-Society:
1) Consumers-who-Purchase
2) Consumers-who-Invest

Abortion -- would it exist in a Misesian Society

Yes -- There would be no Gov't Monopoly on Information, No right-to-kidnap (so how do you try in court), Census, Certification, or Licensure.

How would you know the practices of a business (I'm thinking "mobile" anonymous doctors to avoid murder from anti-abortionists) if there was NO gov't tracking, forced accounting or IRS, etc etc?

Women would have these abortions without your knowledge -- that's it.

The reason you know about how many abortions there are is because of Gov't Census, Licensure, Certification, and Accounting and IRS databases etc.

Would the numbers be as high (as today)?

I would argue NO.

There is greater value (since entrepreneurial-ism is the ONLY revenue vehicle for profit-bursts -- no gov't intervention) in Women and "potential adults" (fetuses).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The answer seems so obvious

It seems to me that we need to debate a couple 'givens' first, even though I see no arguments against them. As I see them, they are:

Women get pregnant and don't want to carry to term for one of two reasons. Either accident/neglect or rape. In either case, the cause should have no bearing on the result. We are debating the legality (not the morality) of ending the fetus' existence after the fact. Morally, a vast majority would agree it's a less-than-perfect solution and wouldn't be used if a better choice was presented.

Every law enacted serves only as an incentive to said behavior and if saving children is the goal, the laws cannot do more than alter those incentives.

With any activity being prohibited, as long as there is a market, an underground black market industry will emerge.

Black markets increase related crime and costs and involve zero regulation, control, accountability and in this case, health concern for the mother.

Personal incentive is a much stronger, faster and more 'free-market' solution since it involves prevention, not after-the-fact discipline.

The government has the right to enforce laws restricting murder and that application is predicated on how a given abortion or the entire practice is labeled.

In a free market, people have the right to privacy of their own bodies which ultimately leads to a woman's right to birth control.

There is a social rift between many groups on where to differentiate birth control from murder. Where this line is drawn determines the application we will choose to apply the law. This line ranges from preventing menstruation all thee way to pre-birth abortions.

There is an underserved market for adoption due to regulation and cost, all imposed by government.

Enough of the givens. Now for the proposal. Since the debate ultimately comes down to where to draw the line and everything else is superfluous, I propose a free market solution. If we agree with the above givens, then we need to incentivize adoption over abortion. Let's promote a free market adoption system that eliminates the red tape and the cost for a couple to adopt these children. With an easier system and a price that is set by the market, we can once again let the morals of society influence who puts their baby up for adoption and who can afford to pay for one. We can ensure the health of everyone involved and we can eliminate all the crime that would otherwise be injected into the mix. The result from this is that the least numbers of babies would be aborted of any proposed system yet, the women would decide what to do based on the convenience and shame of abortion vs. the payout (financially and emotionally) of giving a loving, needy couple a child of their own. With those incentives, social morals can influence the actions without government intervention.

Moses Died a Long Time Ago

If the government started to prosecute confused young mothers for having an abortion...

Would we throw them in jail?

Would we take away all of their money?

Would we take away their other children and destroy the lives of these kids?

How much of the lives of these mothers should we destroy?

How will the government stop the underground and overseas abortion businesses? Military invasion? Perpetual war?

There is a better solution. Government needs to stay out of the sin business. Churches do a better job.

Gene Louis
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

I agree that the answer is no

In a free society, we who oppose abortion on demand would not have government dollars spent on it. The government would only provide the basic essentials to maintaining the defense, liberties and property. Alas and alack, we have disregarded Thomas Jefferson's assessment of government meddling.

"To compel a man to pay for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

I affirm this, and would only add, "If this is so, then it is more sinful and tyrannical to force one to pay for the ideas he abhors to be carried out under color of law."

We should not be paying Planned (un)Parenthood at all with government funds. Let them rely on donations as the crisis pregnancy centers do.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Are you "agreeing" with the OP Thread

Agreeing that in the short-run (in a free-society) the answer is "YES" there would be abortion, because a free-society is a confidential society so there would be truly "private" (doctor / client) medical practice.


Agreeing that in the long-run (in a free-society) the number of abortions would be "low" because women and children would have a naturally higher value (as individuals, as consumers, and as potential entrepreneurs).

Because that's the primary gist of the OP-Thread.


to both counts

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Give it enough time, and

Give it enough time, and those with a propensity to whacking their own kids, will be outbred by those that don't. So, slowly but surely, abortion will become more and more scarce. God works in mysterious ways, after all.

The best those opposed to abortion can do, is to not do anything that stunts this outbreeding. For one, have a bunch of kids yourself. Teach them proper morals, as in: You have a finite capacity for helping others. Use it wisely, by helping those you find most worthy. Let the rabble sink under their own weight. If some whore kills of her children in fertile age, DO NOT ever support any mechanism whatsoever, by which she can lay claim to resources produced by other people's children. That way, once she is old and sick, she will also be gone. The quicker the better.

And lest anyone think this is just an excuse for selfishness, reread the part of finite capacity for giving aid. In a fertile world, there will always be more needy people than resources available to sate their needs. SO, it becomes a moral imperative to chose whom to help. And helping a childless-by-killing-her-kids-back-when-she-was-young-and-strong-enough-to-take-care-of-them, with resources that could otherwise be spent on helping a poor woman who may not be able to properly feed her child despite wanting to, is blatantly immoral.

No Stuki -- the ultra predominant abortion-seeker

come from one of the many branches of religion (religious people).

The 5% of the populace that claim to be atheist could not have even 1/4 of the abortions (1.2M) out there.

When polled women getting abortions are mostly religious -- meaning they believe in God, they have a church they attend, etc.

Of the 160M people who vote for the abortion to win-out year and year (and in '73) it requires "religious folk" to pass it through.

My point -- You will not breed out abortion-seekers.

Of course

it would! Abortion will always exist. Humans are imperfect, stupid, flawed. There would be fewer because people would be forced to assume responsibility for their actions.

Uh, no. That's not why abortion would exist in a free-society

It would exist because there is anonymity in a free-society -- your medical and doctors records are just that YOURS.

So how would you find out -- you wouldn't even know how many were taking place.

The reason why the number of abortions would be FEWER is because the value of women and babies (as future consumers and entrepreneurs) would be much higher.

We (as a society) would have a culture wherein mothers and children were protected and cared for -- not forever in the welfarist sense, but just on face value.

uh- what?

Anonymity doesn't cause abortion, sin does. Bad choices and then worse ones on top of the bad ones.
Women will have to start to value themselves as women and mothers, valuing motherhood and their offspring before anyone else will.


I thought the "abortion for birth control" was kind of a myth. After all, it's not exactly like going in and having a boil lanced. To my understanding it hurts. Both metally and physically.

sad to say..

it isnt a myth. Probably not a very popular view point but then again this is california. as for the comparison between having a boil lanced and an abortion.. you can opt for anesthesia for abortion and I have heard quite a few screaming bloody murder for the other.

what is using abortion as birth control? one abortion? two? I know someone who had 9... maybe that's why it angers me so..?

Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists


in a free society with personal responsibility and all that other good stuff why would ABORTION even be an issue. If you had unprotected sex of ANY kind and feared pregnancy you would beat feat to the nearest dispenser of the morning after pill. If for some reason that were unavailable then you would test as soon as possible and if finding you were pregnant you would immediately request a therapeutic abortion. If that were unavailable for some reason then.. I don't know... I guess women and girls will need to take all that into consideration while planning their personal responsibility.

My issue with abortion is with mid and late term abortion and with women who use abortion as a form of birth control.

I was thinking about what I wrote and could see someone saying well I can't take the morning after pill EVERY TIME I have unprotected sex!
because it's so much easier to cross my fingers and if I get caught I'll just have an abortion. Believe it or not there are women who think like that... I guess in a free society that would be ok tho?

Hopefully in the society you suggest that will no longer be the case because of the "value of potential adults"

Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

would people still look to dodge

responsibility in a free society?

this whole discussion seems to be based on the premise that one can get pregnant by accident.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul


About your name: Do you have ties to space exploration or is that, perhaps, a tribute to Elton John?


it was the 1,234,456,789 attempt at a user name that wasn't taken.
please don't capitalize mine, because there's a Rocketman that was a much better activist than i at one point.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Rocketman (love the name)

Yes -- there will be responsibility dodgers in a free-society.

The difference being is that we wont pay-out mass taxes to try to corral those that do -- as all gov't efforts are massively in-efficient.

One example would be welfare -- where either the Dad or the Corporation never pay-back the services used or taken.

We then spend Billions chasing after these "Dad's" (both kinds) to make them "pay" -- of course we give them loopholes (the corporate kinds) or we give them prison.

That's the stupidity of protection schemes -- you never get what you think you are paying for but you the whole mess because you wanted gov't to take care of it for you -- because you had an ideology towards that particular issue.

Society's Norms

I suppose the answer to that question is that it is dependent on the norms of that society. Most of our beliefs come first from our parents and then second from our circle of friends.

Obviously, we can argue that if the non-aggression principle was universally translated and understood to include the unborn, there would likely be fewer abortions. Obviously, the government has no business of interjecting in issues of morality. So abortions shouldn't be illegal because society hasn't universally agreed whether it is acceptable or not. I doubt we will ever get that far that there is universal agreement either way. Now, if we as a society experience some kind of renaissance in what we truly believe, then it's possible that abortion may fade away if enough people in society opt against it as a personal decision. An abortion doctor will only stay in business as long as that business sustains him. A lack of patients and he withers away and then there may be nobody to do except when medically necessary.

If you generally oppose abortion, you should try to influence others to accept the non-aggression principle as including acts of aggression against the unborn.

The problem I see with pro-lifers and pro-choice people is that both of them want the government to take a position on the issue. I want as little government as possible, I would rather society's norms decide this issue.


Ron Paul agrees with you

He has publicly emphasized the importance of changing people's hearts and minds on this issue rather than depending on government to somehow reduce the number of abortions through violent law enforcement.

I used to be pro-choice

Ron Paul influenced me to be pro-life. I thought pro-choice would logically be the outcome of any contemplation on which position is the libertarian stance. It seems to be for many libertarians right now. Oddly enough, it's Dr. Paul's professional opinion that life begins at conception that made me really think about this issue as opposed to just adopting his position without question. If a doctor who specializes in all things prenatal believes life begins at conception, then there must be something that happens at conception to make it so apparent to him. I pondered on this last thought for awhile and this is what I came up with:

Prior to conception, the egg is just an egg. By itself, it will never become anything. By itself, it is not life. It will not perpetuate itself. It will not grow. The same is true of the sperm. It is not life, either. It will not grow. Left alone, it will never become anything more. However, at conception, everything changes. These separate things combine and a series of processes take place. A cell is formed and has purpose. It divides and divides and then those cells change and take on different functions, eventually leading to a new human. All of these are life-building processes. We should not interrupt this process. We should not act aggressively to stop these processes.


You nailed it.

The biology is undeniable.

Magna est veritas, et prevalebit. Truth is most powerful, and will ultimately prevail.

If you don't believe in abortion?

Don't have one.

Harder to avoid than that

And don't have vaccinations like chicken pox and some flu vaccines and rubella - they were made from aborted fetal tissue. And some cosmetic products have been too, and some flavor enhancers, so you'd better watch out for those. And avoid treatments from embryonic stem cells - hmmm, maybe abortion doesn't stay in that neat little box between a woman and her doctor after all - maybe it's become a lot harder to avoid than you seem to think.

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

Abortion will always exist

just like lying, cheating, stealing and murder. Those things will always exist on earth as we know it. I am looking forward to heaven for perfection.

Octo and Friends

You make some good points about how, even if there were no enforceable laws against abortion, the number of abortions could be reduced tremendously through voluntary actions. It would seem to me, that if a person were an honest pro-lifer, they would be bound to agree that your vision of society would be better from their pro-life values than the one we have now which is based on an obsession with punishment. I get the feeling though, that many pro-life individuals, are more tied to the punishment than the abortion reduction goals.

What does this mean?

"many pro-life individuals, are more tied to the punishment than the abortion reduction goals."

I am not understanding what is meant by punishment.

What I meant was

many people who identify themselves as "pro-life" are more concerned that those who perform or voluntarily undergo an abortion are given legal retribution than they are about actually doing something which could result in there being fewer abortions performed.

Sorry bear, I'm not a real wizard with words. Sometimes my thoughts are not easily translated into eloquence. You know what they say, "Unclear expression is a sign of unclear thought." Oh well, when I retire I'm definitely going back to school!

Thanks for clarifying

Hey no problem at all. I just wanted to make sure I understood.

We have a prolife group in the community up the road that really does do positive things. One of the homeless moms even lived with one of our church members for quite a while. We participate in fund raisers for them and even helped get an ultra sound machine so moms can see their babies.

I don't know people who want retribution. I know people who wnat to help. I am sure there are all kinds though. I never thought about people wanting to punish others. I find often that I live in a very small world.

Perhaps your "problem"

is that God has worked on your heart, so you probably don't think bad thoughts about anyone. If only everyone in the world had that "problem."

I've had people get downright furious with me for my attitude of "giving everyone the benefit of the doubt." I've been called "naive," accused of "living in a cocoon," etc. It's difficult though. Sometimes believing in the good in people really sets you up for a shock when something tragically violent happens.

Anyway, I salute you and the very charitable people in your church. You are truly living your ideals, "walking the walk" so to speak.

Yes, this waking up business

Yes, this waking up business has been difficult. I even thought the government told the truth. I call myself naive and pollyannaish. I didn't even know who pollyanna was until a friend told me I was her. Always seeing thinking everyone is good...except of course myself LOL Well it is nice to meet you. Truly I try to follow Christ who tells us to love God and love each other. That about takes care of it...so simple, and yet so hard.

Nice to meet you :)