18 votes

The woman’s freedom to choose where, how and with whom to give birth, IS a libertarian issue. It’s about self-ownership.

From the https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dissenting-Opinion/4697498130... page of an outspoken Libertarian Woman - Hope you LIKE her:


Dissenting Opinion
Where I argue with a Straw Woman…

Straw Woman: “When I first found your page, I was so excited - another libertarian voice! Even better – a female libertarian voice! I thought, great, we need more of them! But then I read your posts – and became so disappointed. A huge number of your posts are about crazy women who reject science and modern medicine and give birth at home without doctors, or even without any qualified help at all. This is just crazy! I’m unliking your page”.

Dissenting Opinion: “Before you leave my page and never return, can I say a word? You see, I could, of course, talk about the standard libertarian bunch of issues: the insanity of the drug war, the murderous foreign policy of the U.S. government, the injustice of taxation or the police brutality. But you see, there already are lots and lots of FB pages, as well as magazines, websites, podcasts and youtube videos about drug war, foreign policy, taxation and police brutality. I’m very happy that these FB pages, magazine articles, websites, podcasts and youtube videos exist. I have great respect and admiration for people who are writing and speaking on these issues. I just think it will not be the best use of my time and energy to duplicate what these writers and speakers are already doing – and doing well.

The woman’s freedom to choose where, how and with whom to give birth IS a libertarian issue. It’s about self-ownership. It’s about personal autonomy. It’s about the right of a woman to control her body and her life. It’s about the woman’s right to make decisions for herself, according to her conscience, according to what she believes is best for her, without the government bureaucrats intervening ‘for her own good’.

From the libertarian point of view, it’s immaterial whether the choice to birth at home is unwise. Most libertarians believe that being a heavy user of crack cocaine is not a wise choice – yet, they support a person’s right to use crack if that’s what she chooses. Do the rights of a woman who, after lots of reading and researching decides that homebirth is the best option for her and her baby deserve at least as much support from the libertarians as the rights of a crack addict?

Yet, sadly, this issue has long been neglected by the libertarians. In fact, I do not know of a single libertarian who speaks or writes about this issue. (If I’m wrong and there is one, please let me know – I’ll be only too happy to be mistaken).

For a long time, I’ve been hoping that some libertarian voice will start speaking about the issue of freedom for birth. I’ll hope no longer. Instead, I’ll BE this voice. Peace to you”.


This was copied from the https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dissenting-Opinion/4697498130... page of an outspoken Libertarian Woman - Hope you LIKE her.

Comment viewing options

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

The ugly little secret about this issue is ...

This has to be a discussion about property.

If a fetus in the womb is considered property and more specifically property of the person carrying the fetus then "choice" is required.

If the fetus in the womb cannot be defined as property then "life" is required.

Boiling it down to this simple question makes this a very difficulty issue, even for a person of strong faith or for a person strongly in favor of choice.

Very difficult question.

God Bless.

Read Walter Block and Murray Rothbard.

I can't remember which, but one defines it as life from conception and therefore, if unwanted, a tresspasser on which deadly force can be used for violating property rights.

The other defines it as a lifeform which could not survive on its own and is solely dependant on its host, a parasite and allows for medical treatment for such.

Dissenting Opinion Replies to the comments on this post about BI

The author of the post replies to the comments here:


"it is good for the establishment to adopt liberty ideology, but it is not good for those who have already adopted liberty to fall to the feet of the establishment." ~ Annica2

I'm a father of 8

My wife had our first 3 children in the hospital. After doing extensive research, she chose to have the last 5 at home. For her, the risk of hospital birth outweighed the risk of homebirth. For a typical birth, the hospital, with all their various interventions to a natural process, is riskier than a homebirth. Should women and their babies that fall victim to hospital interventionism be held responsible for the medical mistakes of modern medicine?

"the issue of freedom for birth"

do I need to click my heels 3 times for that to make sense to me?

if the woman chose her partner well, would we even be having this discussion?

I posit that your premiss is flawed.


Your argument is incomplete with factoring fetus viability.

Once a fetus is viable outside the womb, there is a contractual relationship between mother and child. Anything the mother intentionally does that can be proven capable of injury of the child, is "child endangerment,". Even the most "pro-choice" states would charge a male with manslaughter, at the least, if he intentionally injures a pregnant woman, causing death to the fetus. Thus, elective abortion after viability of the fetus is first degree murder, and I would proudly prosecute ANY women, as well as a doctor for that charge. Otherwise, "equal protection of the law is a farce". There, I made to argument WITHOUT using religious arguments; and if I were a lawyer, I would have provided pro-bono defense of the shooter that killed that "abortion mill" doctor a few years back, since that doctor was performing "partial birth abortions".

Are you saying that home birth is "endangerment?"

Or just commenting on "choice?"

The business of being born.

When we have a kid we are definitely doing home birth. Here is a great documentary on the subject:


I dont trust doctors who will be apathetic or just want to hurry the procedure so he can golf or force a caesarian section for extra cash. If doctors are ignorant and/or greedy enough to perform circumcisions there is no way I would trust them with childbirth.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

Ayn Rand's take


Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . .

there's more in that link.

I have no respect for Ayn Rand

...I'll skip the rant.

I can definitely understand that point of view..

I too do not believe that a mass of mostly undifferentiated cells could be classified as an actual person. Where I differ is where Rand states that life begins 3 months after conception. I would say when the heart is beating and the nervous system is mostly complete. This happens within the first 2 months, giving the mother plenty of time to decide what to do. What do you think? BTW... it's good to have you back!

-Matthew Good



TY (((((Libertiheist)))))

Giving birth can be a risky business

no matter what environment it happens in.

Walking down steps,

walking across the street, sitting in a chair, driving, having sex, etc, etc... Anything CAN BE risky. Almost anything can kill you.

Just sayin.

as with so many things--

if you are pro-home birth/midwifery, you will point out that the U.S. has a very high infant mortality rate (and most births are hospital centered)--

if you are pro-medicine/science/'progress', you will point out (as one pediatrician with whom I recently spoke did) that there are "home birth train wrecks"--

it was not unusual, and I have the documentation for it, but I choose not to use it on this discussion (because I would not want to be traced)--

for there to be midwives who delivered a thousand babies (give or take) and never lose a baby or a mother--

there are documented cases of such people--

some people have a gift; I don't know how to explain it--

one documented (and there were plenty of people who could have disputed it and never did) case throughout the life of one midwife, from the beginning of her career until the end of her life--

showed that this was the case--

and others were watching--

this woman had a gift; she also would be awakened in the night, and, yes, she was a praying Christian, when a woman was ready to give birth; she knew beforehand (in the 1860s-1900s)--

and would prepare; she would always arrive (pre telephone and frequently with no messenger to send)--

as the woman was just needing her, and she stayed to help the woman after--

So, a person will believe according to his/her biases on this issue--

I think it would help to look at a country like Finland, where fewer births occur in the hospital than in the U.S., and all hospital births are midwife-assisted, and the infant mortality is really low--




There are other studies that state that the standards are different for each country, which accounts for the U.S. having a high mortality rate; apparently in the U.S. more babies are born pre-term, and that gives the U.S. an unfair advantage? I would be inclined to ask why so many more babies are born pre-term in the U.S. than to state that that phenomenon gives the U.S. an unfair rating--

WHY are so many babies born pre-term in the U.S. as compared with countries that have lower infant mortality rates? Instead of using that as an excuse for America's high infant mortality--

a reason for pre-term birth needs to be isolated--if possible; not every case will be the same, but such a variant does seem to warrant investigation--

A person can pretty much find what he/she wants to back up his/her bias--


I didn't think this discussion concerned abortion--

but maybe I misread--

I thought it had to do with birthing--

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

From somebody with experience... home birthing WINS

My wife gave birth at home this year to our fourth son. Our birthing choices have run the gamut. Our first was done in a hospital with an epidural. The second was born naturally, but in the hospital where everything was done the “hospital way”. The third was born in the hospital, but with a doula by our side helping my wife through the labor (the doctors and nurses visibly HATED her presence). And finally, our most recent experience at home.

I can tell you that the home birth was hands down the BEST experience that we had. My wife loved it. She was so much more comfortable. The midwife was so much more involved in the process than nurses are. My wife was able to bond with the baby in a way that the hospital prevented her from doing. It was a really positive experience for everybody involved.

When so many families have such positive experiences with home birthing, it’s a no-brainer that this is a decision that the government needs to butt out of.


Where/how/with whom you have the birth is not an issue with me
and I don't think it would be for Dr. Paul either.
as far as personal choice and aborting.. he's clear.
Ron Paul:
You can't defend Liberty and Personal Choices (aka 'my' body)
if you don't defend Life. Life is crucial.
In Dr. Ron Paul's view..
it is not a property rights issue (mother/choice),,
it is an inalienable right/Life issue.

Murray Rothbard on Abortion

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms

Ok, so know I have no respect for Rothbard either.

Who decides who is a "Libertarian?"

Kids are

"parasites" until they can completely take care of themselves. so unless this guy is saying you can kill a child until they move out he is making a very ridiculous argument. If he is arguing the woman is a mother he is also arguing that the fetus is a child, again unless he is literally saying mothers have the right to kill their children until those children live on their own his argument is hogwash.

Birth Where You Want, But Be Prepared

Just a word to anyone considering home birth. If it's something you want to do, I say go for it but here's a cautionary tale.

My wife and I have a new baby that is less than a month old. My wife is as healthy as you can get, pregnancy was very normal and healthy, baby was/is very normal and healthy.

After our baby was born, my wife hemmoraged. No reason why, it just happened but it was very scary and she lost a lot of blood. Blood pressure dropped dangerously low and she was close to passing out from blood lost. She had to have a transfusion afterwards to replace all the blood lost. There was no warning, no signs that she was going to basically begin to bleed out.

I'm extremely thankful that we were at a hospital with nurses, docs and most importantly blood on hand. Home births are great if everything goes well and I'm no fan of the hospital system but my wife may not be here if we had our baby at home.

Just my $0.02

You own your life, but abortion is forced killing of another

Therefore your logic does not apply.

The Red Coats are coming!

I won't downvote you but you

I won't downvote you but you clearly didn't read her post. She's not talking about abortion she's talking about unorthodox birth.

Sorry to disagree...but

Sorry to disagree...but personal autonomy for whom? Your personal autonomy was exercised when you chose to get pregnant.Now when there is another life you are responsible for your choice and that responsibility now includes the rights of another. The venue of birth giving is hardly an issue to make controversial.

JustLiberty4US's picture

I'm glad you brought this

I'm glad you brought this topic up. I posted the issue awhile back, but didn't get much traction: http://www.dailypaul.com/278448/libertarianism-and-the-birth...

I strongly believe a woman should be able to give birth at home, and that this to be a libertarian issue. Unfortunately, most libertarians I meet are men, and aren't so interested in talking about birth. However, what many do not know is that mid-wives are being arrested and charged with all sorts of things (i.e. practicing medicine without a license and even manslaughter).

Like other libertarian solutions, science is on our side. Without a doubt, having a baby at home is SAFER than in the hospital (given that the woman doesn't have prior health issues). The propaganda brought on by the medical establishment and the state, tells women otherwise (and they believe it).

This post is a bit confusing in the way that it is written.

I will just say this. The decision on where to give birth is up to a woman if she has made the unwise decision to get pregnant out of wedlock. If she is married then it is hers and her husbands decision. I also disagree with the apparent premise that home birth is somehow more dangerous than hospital birth. I think that just the opposite is true.

This post was disjointed at best

Sorry, this post was almost unreadable.

Was this about home birthing or the OTHER persons facebook page?
If this was about Home Birthing then give the relevant facts about the information. Don't throw your readers off onto another website to make your point.

If it is about Home birthing, mid-wifery, natural child birth, birthing with assistance, then give the positive aspects of doing so. Don't link to why someone else thinks its bad. Make them take the time to post why they think its wrong.

Italics go a long way to let people know what is your opinion and what is being quoted by someone else.

This is my opinion on home birthing:

1) Giving birth is a natural process not a medical procedure.
2) Sometimes giving birth turns into a medical procedure. Be prepared.
3) Mid Wifery, Aqua birthing, Birthing Centers all are better for the mother, the child and the pocket book.

a) Mom is more comfortable
b) Dad is a participant
c) The birth is less stressful
d) Families that chose home birthing have thought ahead, taken lamaze, most likely taken the supplements, haven't smoked or drank, and like being married, want their child being brought into the world as a special occasion not a drug induced haze they never remember or complain about.

Hi Texas, I have added bold so you can understand it easier

Hi Texas,

I have added bold to the title and to the names, also my write up has been separated from the pasted text by these lines: "--------------"

Hope that this helps make the paste more legible to you.

"it is good for the establishment to adopt liberty ideology, but it is not good for those who have already adopted liberty to fall to the feet of the establishment." ~ Annica2