Cerritos College
Cerritos College • Norwalk, Calif.

Talon Marks

Cerritos College • Norwalk, Calif.

Talon Marks

Cerritos College • Norwalk, Calif.

Talon Marks

Calendar
TM Digital Newsletter

TM TikTok

Abortion

 

In 1974, shortly after the landmark Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion at the federal level, future Associate Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said, “With every kind of birth control available in the world, abortion is not something to be proud of. If you need an abortion, you’ve failed.”

Since 1973 and the decision in Roe v. Wade, the court has held that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, and this right may not be infringed upon. However, there is a far more fundamental set of rights at stake in the debate that it seems many on the pro-abortion side of the coin have neglected to consider: Property rights.

Property rights are exceptionally important to the proper function of a free society. Without them, one may not lay claim to their own body, or the things they produce and buy.

When it comes to abortion, property rights should take center stage in the debate. However, it is important to explain how they apply, since some pro-abortionists have demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of this issue.

Many assume, incorrectly, that since a woman owns her body, she has the right to evict anything from it, including an unborn child. This, pro-abortionists believe, is analogous to a restaurant owner forcing customers to leave, on the grounds that he owns the property, and may regulate it as he sees fit.

To see why this understanding of property rights is incorrect, let us consider a different analogy.

Suppose I own an airplane, and offer to fly you from Los Angelesto New York City. You accept the offer, and we begin our journey. A few hours into the flight, I announce over the PA system, that you are no longer welcome aboard, and must leave the plane immediately. You, of course, recognize that this will mean certain death, since we’re 35,000 feet above the ground, and moving at around 500mph.

Although obviously absurd, the pro-abortionist would have to admit that this analogy is completely consistent with their view of property rights as they apply to abortion. The rest of us are immediately appalled by what we see as murder, and realize that if airlines were able to do this on the grounds that they own the airplanes and have the right to evict anyone from them at anytime, everyone would cease flying altogether.

The reason airplane owners can’t and don’t evict people mid-flight is because they have contractual obligations that require them to deliver passengers safely to their desired destinations, or face severe penalties.

The same is true in any interpersonal or inter-agency property rights agreements; including that of mother and fetus.

When a woman risks getting pregnant by choosing to have intercourse-which is the case more than 90% of the time-she has made a contract with the fetus to carry it to term. Aborting the fetus is therefore a contract violation, since the fetus cannot live outside the mother’s womb until a certain point; usually in the third trimester.

For those who believe abortion should be legal for women who have been raped, there are two arguments that negate this often used cliché. The first is that pregnancy can be prevented in rape victims if they go to the hospital soon after the assault has occurred. The second is that since there is no sure-fire way to prove how a woman became pregnant, allowing abortion for rape victims would only encourage people who voluntarily chose to get pregnant by having sex to lie, and perhaps selfishly blame an innocent man who may well go to prison so she can have access to an abortion.

For those who think cases where the mother’s life is threatened by her pregnancy are reason enough for abortion, there are two more negating arguments. The first is that medical science has advanced to such a point that a pregnant woman’s ailments can be treated without doing any harm to the fetus. The second is that there are no illnesses that require abortion as the treatment. If the mother is ill, treat her. Don’t kill the innocent child.

Finally, for those who would advocate mercy killing to prevent the unborn child from living a future life of depredation, or from suffering with a handicap, there are a million arguments against yours, one of which I will discuss here. A child born with any kind of disadvantage is a child no less. Life is far too precious to be thrown away frivolously, like some kind of dirty rag. Murder-which is the proper term for abortion, since all scientists agree that a fetus is a living being-is never a justifiable solution to a problem like poverty.

Abortion is a completely unjustifiable act. It only encourages people to behave irresponsibly, since it increases moral hazard and bails people out of suffering the consequences of their actions.

It is time we put an end to abortion on the grounds that it violates property rights, and is therefore immoral. If we can’t protect life, how will we ever protect liberty?

Story continues below advertisement
Leave a Comment
More to Discover

Comments (0)

All Talon Marks Picks TM Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activate Search
Abortion