Before I begin let me say I have some legal concerns with almost all positions on the abortion spectrum, and have written about several of them. I also will point out that my own beliefs are not relevant here. I am offering this post solely to discus what I think is an absurd argument.

In the past I have read various writings that argue that individualist philosophies cannot be anti-abortion, as it imposes obligations upon a mother, depriving her of her individual freedom. Sometimes it is worded differently, but everyone from the most liberal pro-chocie advocate to some Objectivists*, argues that somehow imposing a positive obligation upon a mother to carry a fetus to term is an infringement on her rights. (Granted, Rand's original argument rested more upon the fetus not being an individual by her definition, but some of her followers seem to have adopted the individualist position as well.)

Now, granted, if the fetus is not a legal person, none of this matters. But, as I have argued, it is hard to define precisely when personhood attaches. Is a fetus a person only when totally expelled? So even a toe in the mother leave it open to being killed? Then what about fetal homicide laws? How can they coexist with this perspective? But enough of that, as I covered it completely in my post "Legal Schizophrenia".

Obviously, the presumption must be that a fetus is a person, at least at some stage, for this argument to even make sense. But, assuming we do admit the fetus is a person at some stage, is it a violation of my philosophy, based as it is upon individual autonomy and freedom, to require a mother to carry a child to term? Is this somehow an imposition of an illicit burden that goes beyond the pwoer of the state?

I would argue that it is not, and would point to three other cases. Lifeguards, jailers, and fathers. I would also mention child abuse statutes.

Allow me to explain.

We have no legal problem with positive obligations. For instance, under normal circumstances there is no legal wrong if you fail to save a drowning man or do not provide food and water to another. But, let us say you are a lifeguard. By your presence you have given implicit assurance you will save those who are drowning, and thus prevent others from making efforts, and so assume the positive obligation to make an effort to save an individual. Similarly, while I have no legal obligation to give anyone water, if a jailer fails to give water to prisoners, he is charged, because by taking a position tending to those who cannot feed or water themselves, he assumes a positive obligation to provide for them.

Then again, those people did assume their obligations voluntarily through their actions, consciously accepting those obligations, so perhaps we should look at someone who is given an obligation involuntarily, which brings us to fathers. And this is more closely on point. A man, by having unprotected intercourse with a woman, can be made to pay to support those children that are created, even if he wants her to abort them, just because he had intercourse. In short, he is given the positive obligation to support the children he created, whether he wihes to assume it or not, whether he intended to sire children or not. (Legally, he does not assume an obligation, the children have a right to support which they can enforce against him, but in effect it is an obligation on the part of the father to take action. So the difference is negligible. In fact, we could view the requirement to carry a fetus to term as an enforcement of the child's right to life, making it even more on point.)

But perhaps the best example would be that of child abuse. If individualist philosophy cannot place an obligation upon a mother to carry a fetus to term, then how can it place an obligation upon her to care for or feed those children once they are born? If there is no way we can impose positive obligations, then what is to prevent the revival of the practice of exposing unwanted children? On the other hand, if parents are obligated to support and care for children, then they can also, on the same theory, be required to carry a child to term.

Of course, as I said, this all is moot if we do not believe a fetus to be a person. It also is moot if we decide that we cannot require  amother to feed or care for children. In that case, then we also cannot require her to carry a fetus to term. But by the same token, we could also not require a man to pay child support, as it is imposing the same sort of obligation upon him. So if we eliminate the concept that motherhood imposes obligations, we have to do the same for fatherhood.

Before anyone criticizes this by claiming I am saying child support requires that we ban abortion, my point is a much more limited one. My point is, if we allow that a fetus is a person, and we allow that a father can be obligated to pay child support, then by that logic there is no inconsistency between an individualist philosophy and saying that pregnancy can impose an obligation to carry the child to term. That is all. Any additional conclusions require other assumptions, and are beyond the scope of this post. All I wanted to show was that individualism and pro-life positions are not mutually incompatible.

------------------------------------------------------

* I don't mean to keep beating up on Rand. I really do like quite a lot of what she wrote. And though I have some problems with the cult-like behavior of some of her followers (eg. the way Branden became an "unperson" after his ejection from the movement), I don't harbor any ill will toward Ms. Rand. Despite all that, in two recent cases her positions seem to perfectly illustrate specific errors I was discussing.

------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Here is a list of my previous writing on the laws surrounding abortion:

Unneccessary Legal Concept
Legal Schizophrenia
A Few Questions on Abortion
A Much More Simple Abortion Question
Why Judicial Activism Hurts
What I Want in a President
Strange Contradictions
Interpretation and Activism
Best of the Web Imitates Me XII
Reading Into Things

As you can see, my general interest has been in pointing out the inconsistencies in the arguments offered up by all sides. The reason for this is simple. It just doesn't interest me. I see very little broader impact from abortion law on society at large, so there is not much to say about it. And so I tend to focus on other issues, where the implications are more involved. I am not saying it is an unimportant issue, just that from the point of view of writing, there isn't as much of interest to say.