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.
Cyril's picture

I find EXTREMELY worrisome a

I find EXTREMELY worrisome a society willing to trade the life of a fetus in an agenda with so-called social or economic "reasons".

Or even worse : for scientific reasons in a context of eugenism.

In fact, I do NOT wish to live in such a society, but regretably and very saddening, this is precisely what we have already today.

To add insult to injury, it turns out that some public funds, where tax payers have no direct nor significant control of how their money is used, go to implement the VERY thing they personally reject as immoral or unjust or inhumane.

My point was that if the OP's free society is so free that it compromises with such ideas at the discretion of women who go for abortion, I would at least expect to be free, as well, to reject it in every possible ways we deem ethical and lawful :

Preaching against it, not funding it, and helping in the opposite direction and encouraging a greater number of free people to do the same.

As far as I can tell, western civilization, as of today, has it ALL BACKWARDS : since it is trying hard to find justifications and enabling them by force of law to kill fetuses in objectively inhumane ways.

Like I said before, or implied, anyway :

the next step might as well be to kill BORN babies or kids, or even, hell, why not they would say, old people becoming a burden to achieve the desired social or economic outcomes.

To me this is INHUMANITY and I won't be happy until the day these issues are seen by everybody, without need for laws, as being obviously : protecting LIFE ought to be above everything else.

Bear with me.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I understand your outrage--

I recently have come to feel that it's almost untenable to live anywhere in this world--

I want to take those closest to me and find an island--

(and no such place exists, if we could get to it)--

but I also 'get' what Octobox is saying or writing--

he is being very realistic--

how do those who believe abortion is wrong (obviously many of *us* on DP do)

keep it from happening?

When *we* begin to discuss the practicalities of how it would be/could be stopped we realize that some of *us* (those who value life at all levels, even if it means we suffer to sustain it)--

care more--

others care less, and *we* are all living together.

My particular spiritual belief (I am a Christian) is that God threw us all 'down here' (wherever the earth is in relation to God) to see how everyone would react, everyone being thrown together, those who value life, those who don't)--

to see what would happen.

Sometimes, I have found in my over six decades of living, those who want to be good and right will try to force those who do not care to do the right thing--

and then a good becomes an evil--

at what point do *we* invite tyranny in order to have good?

It's a terrible balance and one that I ponder when I am sleepless at night--

Do *I* (who value life) force someone else to value it? And if/when I do, am I evil? Am I evil if I don't? I have to believe, ultimately, that God knows better than I do and that I am not God and can't make others value the things I value, including life--

I really do believe in God, or I wouldn't be able to bear the burden of it--

in other words, He will judge--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Cyril's picture

Did you mean "how we SHOULD keep it from happening ?"

By this :

"how do those who believe abortion is wrong (obviously many of *us* on DP do)

keep it from happening?"

... Did you mean "how we SHOULD keep it from happening" ?

(because, as of TODAY, we are OBVIOUSLY STILL FAILING to protect LIFE in this BACKWARDS society, if one asks me)

Well, here's a hint :

we mentioned voluntary charity earlier, right ?

Have a look at this and tell me if, when multiplied by just a couple millions, PEOPLE WOULD NOT BE ABLE to use THEIR HEARTS to DONATE, VOLUNTARILY, and PROUDLY, to help work out the exceptional cases where a soon-to-be-mother girl or woman is so hurt that she's unwilling (because of rape, or whichever other horror...) to accept raising her kid :


Do you think I have the SLIGHTEST CLUE of where my sweat and headaches money WENT TO ?

Answer is : Hell, NO.

Much regretably.

Do you think I got ANYTHING in return from the government ?

Same answer. And Tell you what. I don't EXPECT ANYTHING from the government to provide for me, but only helping me to defend my NATURAL rights if I need. Including property. Which they don't...



so, technically, unless PROVEN TO ME OTHERWISE, I have been stolen, BY THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF, and I suspect my money has been WASTED IN MANY THINGS I WOULD NEVER endorse. That is WHY and ONLY WHY I cannot donate as much as I can for THE GREATER GOOD.

Yes, WASTE. Like, you know ... funds to allow the killing of innocent people overseas, not just for the fun of it, but because it also generates juicy Lockheed contracts. For their BUDDIES.

Etc, etc.

Sorry for the bitter angry tone. It's nothing against you or your remark of course. It's just I'm tired to have seen the same pattern over and over again and some people still don't get it.

We ought to strike at the root of Evil, not at the branches.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;

the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

-- Winston Churchill

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

it is hard not to be angry--

I am still angry much of the time; for some reason the sound of Mitt Romney's voice makes me very angry--

(it's not even logical)--

I have been fighting this private battle to save lives for decades--

it's a hard battle, and there aren't that many soldiers that I can see--

there are people willing to give money to 'right to life' organizations that hire lawyers to mess around with laws that don't save any babies--

but people who are out on the front lines, dealing with the results of immoral choices--

I hope you're not angry with me, and I feel the same way you do about the evil banksters--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I should have read your post before I posted, because . . .

I basically repeated what you wrote--

The only way to 'prevent' abortion or to reduce the number of abortions is to cut funding for all of those who benefit from abortion--

and in a free society, that could be done--

but if a society determines to punish a person for killing her unborn, then that could never be a free society; it would be a society of the most repressive type--

a terrible place in which to live; after all, how would anyone know when those who monitored (if such a thing could ever be approved by truly moral/reasonable/liberty loving people) pregnant women would turn and begin to monitor: (your choice; anything you value doing, such as eating, sleeping, hugging your family members, praying, reading, etc.)--

a terrifying prospect--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--


no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body.

hm. didn't know a "parasite" was biologically capable of

growing into fully grown humo-sapien-sapiens.

now, that must be some 'creationist' guidebook you must subscribe to!


Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I was quoting Rothbard

You should know, AnCapMercenary....

yes, I DO know, and I've also seen another thread on the

same topic; precisely WHY I sarcastically reiterated it, here.

though, seems like post-RNC, it's as if some Bat-signal went up to telegraph 'now it's okay to drive wedge issues! wee!'

seriously, I truly don't know why we can't just all get along simply based on the core tenets of the non-aggression axiom/principle, alone.

of course, that would be an ideal, hopeful scenario. but alas, unfortunately, that is not so, is it?

still doesn't make you or Rothbard's position correct, or a moral one, for that matter.

don't know if you have children, but to generalize pregnancies, all or select, wanted or not, intentional or not, as a "parasite" is first of all, scientifically, and 2ndly, factually wrong.

For a fetus to be a "parasite," or have a "parasitic relationship,"

1. 'It' would have to have an antagonistic (non-mutual) relationship to the host
2. 'It' would have to be a DIFFERENT species
3. 'It' would have to live off of the host, at its expense

Now, ask any woman you know who's reared a child, if she ever thought of her pregnancy in that manner.

Regardless how one describes the state of pregnancy, factually, scientifically, anyone who labels a fetus as having a parasitic relationship to the mother would be 100% wrong, on ALL counts.

1. mother and the fetus, are biologically constantly in contact at all times; completes a bio-feedback circuit/loop
2. obviously both are humans
3. the mother releases and receives hormonal response from the existence of the fetus; hardly "at its expense" as the mother's body is biologically fortified for the purpose of carrying and delivering the child, be it increase in size of the mammary glands, or heightened senses, etc. the mother's biology benefits as well as the fetus'



Yup. I DO know where that's from; a few times that Murray was actually wrong. Hey, no one's perfect.o)


Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul


There are two ways to look at abortion: Those who would kill their own offspring are better left out of the gene pool. Or, all human life is sacred and that human deserves a chance at life. Part of me agrees with the first, but morally the second is where I stand.

The mentality of the above post amazes me. A human child is no more a parasite to a body than handicapped people are a parasite to society. Such mentality leads to horrors as seen in WWII Germany.

Pregnancy is how we survive as a species. If someone gets wounded by a criminal they still live, and that criminal does not deserve death. The consequences are unfortunate, but we have to live with them. If a woman is raped and is impregnated she still lives, and what her body goes through as a consequence is unfortunate, but that baby does not deserve death as a response. But if a woman willingly has sex then she has willingly submitted her body to the possibility of becoming impregnated. That is a reality of life. No person deserves to die just because another doesn't want to suffer the consequences of her actions.

A "right" is a guarantee -- It must be protected by intervention

non-privacy, and via force-agency.

That's how you safe-guard Red Markets -- make what they sell "illegal."

If you want to protect fetuses -- according to free-market theory you must end protectionism in every single market.

This will force wealthy people to ONLY earn profit-bursts from Entrepreneurs or Innerpreneurs. From start-ups or R&D innovations.

When they are forced to do this -- because they have no guarantees on profit (no gov't intervention) then the VALUE of fetuses goes way way way up. If you make money by entrepreneurialism or innerpreneurialism then you NEED more children to become adults.

Maybe only 1 - 100,000 will be Innovators.

Women will be paid in a free-society to give birth -- we'll have baby factories where we produce children like mad.

If there is an entrepreneurial gene we'll discover it and engineer it; that's how valuable "potential" will be in a free-society.

As Ron Paul says (I paraphrase) "whatever protectionism you seek if gov't controls it you'll get the opposite of what you want"

Yes, but...

it should still be illegal. The law doesn't stop murders from happening either, but it does lessen them. The whole point of government is to protect the rights of the people, including the right to life. Without life, there is no liberty. An unborn baby is entitled to their human rights.

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

sadly, I can't agree--

laws against murder simply make it so that people find more ingenious ways of murdering and covering it up, so they aren't discovered and punished--

I don't think laws against murder prevent murders--

what about all the CIA murders--

how does the law prevent those?

I appreciate the 10 commandments; I think there needs to be a written 'code' of what is and what is not acceptable, but it is no good unless it touches hearts and consciences--

but as for law being effective, I think the more laws there are, the less effective they are--

It's hard to know how to explain to someone who feels as strongly as *I* do about the sanctity of life that in the process of making laws there must be enforcement, or the laws have no value--

and that in the process of enforcement there will be loss of freedom for everyone, not just for those who break the law--

the only effective means of having a completely moral society is through teaching people to be moral and making it possible for people to be moral by removing unjust laws--

such as the unjust laws that now govern the finances of this nation and the world--

End the Fed--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

If you allow for "one thing" to be illegal, then soon all things

will be illegal -- Force-Agency must grow.

All human history shows that Force-Agency (Gov't) always grows year-to-year until it collapses and a new Force-Agency (one that seems "freer") takes over.

The law stops nothing.

A Free-Society is free-of "entitlements" -- Nature provides no entitlement.

Nothing stops a man from running a red light -- now the law CAN provide after-the-fact punishment (via it's "right" to kidnap, detain, imprison, enslave, fine, and shun).


Abortion kills an innocent human being, and as with all such killing, should be illegal. That is the point of government, to protect the innocent and punish those who hurt others...

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

Do you believe in "privacy"

If so, how much privacy?

If you allow one group of people to determine just how much privacy a person has a right too, do you think they will limit their intrusiveness or do you think it would grow by-leaps-and-bounds every year?

The history of all world gov'ts shows that gov't only grows.

It's the old mafia protection schema "....if you guys don't want kids to throw rocks through your window you need to hire us to guarantee it"

Nature does not protect fetuses nor parents -- that's a free-society.

Zero-Protectionism -- 100% Possibility of Failure

That's called "pure competition"

There's no place for Gov't in a free-society. Now during a transition that would be one thing, but even then that kind of Gov't must have a diminishing (self-diminishing) schema built into it -- an auto-immune disease if you will. It must cannibalize itself, reduce in size year-to-year as people are handed back the responsbility of "self-rule"

Self-Rule and Gov't are mutually exclusive.

The thing folks like you don't understand is that in a Free-Society there is PROFOUND value in women and their "product"

In a free-society profit bursts are dependent on entrepreneurial or R&D start-ups / innovation (respectively).

This means there needs to be as many people born as possible because only 1 in 10,000 are born entrepreneurs (probably less).

People will offer women money to "keep" their babies -- Orphanages will be wildly successful and innovation will be the basis of education.

But if you do not "trust this" then you will vote and lobby (grow gov't) and you will have more of what you don't want.

About "Nature"

A comment about "Nature"...humans are different from every other creature in their self awareness and cognizance of a right and wrong. There is nothing wrong, for example, with a cheetah going after the slowest and youngest gazelle. That's what we'd expect from an animal predator - go after the easy prey. It's ludicrous to expect the animal to say "well, that just isn't sporting - I should go after only the big and fast ones who have a fighting chance." But think about how we feel about human soldiers going after the children of their enemy instead of enemy soldiers. We'd see that as reprehensible. Why? Humans are subject to a higher law than animals in Nature. We feel an obligation to protect the weakest among us.

In Nature, might makes right does it not? Seems to be a justification for more government to me. I don't see Nature as a good model for freedom. Our awareness of a right and wrong standard that applies to only human kind makes us fight against the inherent cruelties of unfettered Nature - makes us fight against might makes right, or what you refer to as "pure competition." Actually, the more you let Government follow the lead of unfettered Nature, then that brings about overbearing government. It is awareness of our responsibility to protect those weaker than ourselves that leads us to try to write protections of our liberties into law.

The question that needs to be asked is, how much privacy do you have if you are dead? Some things come before privacy. First and foremost is a protection of our right to life. That trumps privacy. We are not animals. Humans *are* their brother's keeper, in the sense that we have a responsibility to protect the weak and vulnerable among us. Animals have no such responsibility, and so cannot be compared to us.

"Self-rule and government are mutually exclusive."

Yes, you either are part of a society, presumably to receive the protection it affords and in return take on your responsibility to help that society continue, or you live by yourself, protect yourself, have the responsibility to only provide for yourself. The former needs government to help delineate what society does for you and what responsibilities you have to society. The latter is the circumstance under which you can have "self-rule," -living all by yourself. Once you interact with others, responsibility to others kicks in. And humans are not meant to live by themselves, we are social beings.

Bottom line is that we have responsibilities to each other, and highest among those responsibilities is not protection of privacy but protection of life.

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

I appreciate your commentary JSM ;-)

I disagree with and believe it to be the reason we do not have liberty.

Democrats define Liberty

Republicans define Liberty

Libertarians define Liberty

**I'm here assuming there to only be in truth three parties and any other party would be a subset of one or more of the above.

If you use voting and lobbying to gain "your" definition of liberty you will be engaged in pereptual war and you will only get it in spurts or in part.

The reason gov't lasts (forever or is ever renewed) is because of fractionalization -- because WE (the consumer: republican, democrat, and libertarian a like) use consumptive-punhishments and consumptive-controls over our "enemies" to get what we want.

It is childish -- it is essentially toy-taking "mine, mine, mine, mine"

Mises argues "let the market and consumptive-choice rule the day"

Righteous comes out of Liberty and Liberty cannot come from Abdication and Bribery (Voting and Lobbying - respectively).

Righteous comes out of "choice"

You CANNOT stop murder or rape by law or decree -- the police stop less than 1% of all murders or rapes (ahead of the event) -- LESS THAN 1%.

The military and CIA do not PREVENT war -- they start them by enforcing consumptive-controls over the enemy. The war either bounces back on us (here) or us (over there) or it cannibalizes the innocent (starting civil wars). That's it -- that's all you can get from Gov't/Military/CIA

If that is true for foreign war and I'm saying voting-lobbying is the precursor to physical war -- it is an ideological war as RP has pointed out then how can you expect to beget "liberty" (by the libertarian definition) via a Corporatist tool (ballot box)?

You must "trust" that liberty-of-consumptive-choice will beget "less" murder and mayhem otherwise you are no better than a Republican or Democrat -- who FUNDAMENTALLY believe that people cannot be allowed to make all choices in their life.

You CANNOT prevent murder or crime via abdication of self-defense.

If you want to defend babies then the religious (and atheist) who feel that way need to put their money where their mouths are.

Run advertisements that say "we'll give you $2000 per month for 9, pay for the birthing expense, and help you 'get on your feet' -- regardless if you keep the baby or put it up for adoption."

There are 120M working religious people in America -- This would only be $60 per month each (approx).


"You CANNOT stop murder or rape by law or decree -- the police stop less than 1% of all murders or rapes (ahead of the event) -- LESS THAN 1%."

Correction - police stop less than 1% of all murders or rapes *committed*. But how many were not committed because they have been made illegal? How many were deterred from such action because they know it is unacceptable to the society they live in? I don't think it is truly knowable how many crimes are not committed because they are against the law. Will a law stop *all* crime? No, of course not. But, if an action is not forbidden by law, it could be assumed by more people that there is nothing wrong with said action. Conversely, if there is a societal stigma and punishment associated with an action, less people will engage in it.

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

Then you are in favor of The War on Drugs?

....after all it is a protection schema which you believe is needed to keep people "moral"

I think your post gave me an epiphany and this is not a negative reflection on you, but I guess this makes sense -- you are a religious person, right?

A religious person believes that everything good about them comes from God, all praise be, and therefore would NEVER rely on or trust "free-men" being perfect-born perpetual "sinners" to be anything but immoral.

Wow -- I never thought it was religious people keeping a free-market at-bay, but I think that actually makes sense psychologically -- though it's not what Jesus argued, is it?

"know ye not that ye are gods" or something like that.

"the kingdom of god is within you"

How can "gods" and beings with an inner "kingdom" need the scrawny laws of man to keep them safe?


I don't favor the war on drugs. Drug use by an individual is a victimless crime. Not so with abortion. Abortion is murder. Another innocent person is killed. If you are part of a society that is meant to protect your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, well, that society should have a strong social stigma against murder, should it not?

Your quotes seem to harken to the New Age philosophy that we are God. I don't believe that humans can make such a mess of things if they are God. Jesus was referring to judges having the power over life and death when He said that "do ye not know ye are gods" quote. He was not actually calling people equal to God in all aspects. And, we have freedom of choice to accept God's love or reject it. If you accept it, then God comes to dwell in your heart and His kingdom is within you. We are not autonomous Gods in our own right. We are creatures made by God. Jesus also said "I am the vine, you are the branches.""Without Me you have no life within you." "No one can come to the Father unless the Father draw him."

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

I stand with Ron Paul on this issue

I am pro-life personally, however as an American, i support Pro-Choice.

As Ron Paul would say:
"Just because we allow something doesn't mean we endorce it, I'd like to talk you out of it, but you have every right to make your decision, just remember you alone have to deal with the consequences."

He's not pro-choice on abortion!!

Is this why Ron Paul introduces a Life at Conception Act every year? Don't call him pro-choice - he is not. Abortion is not like drug use or prostitution - those activities only directly affect those who engage in them. Abortion hurts someone else, and so Ron Paul does not believe it should be allowed.

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

I agree with your premise

I agree with your premise that we know more of how many women avail themselves of abortion because of Govt interference, however, I don't agree that the incidence of abortion would decrease in a free Misian (sp?)society.

Women have been terminating pregnancies since Mankind began. In ancient days, they would gather herbs that would terminate pregnancy by bringing on contractions. Kitting needles and other sharp, long objects were used to perform abortions in later stages by triggering contractions by breaking the woman's water. Abortion is as old as mankind itself.

I submit that the percentage of women choosing abortion is about the same consistently through the ages. The difference today is that its no longer a matter of shame which previously drove women to keep it private.

Blessings )o(

If you are in favor a free-society (without gov't intervention)

then you WILL have abortion.

Everything in a free-society is "under the talbe" -- though there would be consumer-advocacy groups who would bring "sunshine" to b-practices.

There would be no "right" to medical information, to procedures performed.

A free-society is a "private" society and if you could find doctors (and there will be) to perform these operations the consumer and producer will come together.

You will have abortions, prostitution, and automobiles made without "certification of safety" on the road.

And I'm against Abortion toob

Not politically against -- meaning I would not vote to control consumption; because I believe in a free-society where consumers-rule. But "ethically" and "Hippocratean" (I was adopted, "got my chance to live").

Are you feeling lonely over here, Octo?

You currently have one(1) upvote and one(1) comment, yours. Now you have mine. You should upvote your comment though.

No comment on your post. Not that it's bad. Just no comment.