Liberalism and Abortion

Does the liberal ruling on the inviolability of the right to life applies to the unborn? This is the fundamental question in the debate between pro-choice and pro-life movements. Whether the deliberate termination of pregnancy before the fetus becomes viable violates the ruling rests on two controversial issues – when life begins and parental ownership.

Human life begins during fecundation or sometime during the gestation period? Life itself begins with the first cell split. But an embryo only becomes human once it has developed a brain. The brain begins to develop after the third week of pregnancy and will be complete by the 36th week. However, by the 22nd week it will be sufficiently developed to allow the survival of premature born babies. This is also the period after which the unborn can definitely be considered as separate from his mother.

The critical stage of brain development is between weeks seven and nine when it gains shape and becomes capable of some behavioral complexity. Thus a human being is alive by the ninth week and from then onwards abortion should be condemned.

We have said about suicide that for God-believers life is God's property. Yet, we have also noticed above that an unborn can only be separated from his mother on the 22nd week. So, between weeks 9 and 22 shall we consider the mother as a simple trustee of a God’s life or the rightful owner of the unborn human? If we take the second view then mothers would have the right to dispose of their babies until that stage of the gestation period.

Yet, for non-believers, the rights to freedom and equality based on mutual love would impose on mothers the obligation to protect the unborn human being during that period. Therefore, under the property criteria liberals cannot expand beyond nine weeks the period during which abortion is acceptable.

However, self-defense provides an exceptional circumstance under which abortion could be carried out beyond the ninth week. This includes only the case when the mother’s life is at danger due to pregnancy. It does not include other exceptions often invoked, namely in the cases of rape, incest or malformation of the unborn. Other arguments about saving the parents and the unborn from future pain and misery must be also refuted.

In conclusion, the liberal principles require the protection of all unborn individuals from the moment when they can be considered human beings.

The Founders of Libertarianism

Any doctrine should be like a living being. It has its origins and then develops in many different ways. One should not take its founders to the letter, in a Koran-like fashion. But, likewise we must require that its many emanations have a minimum content from the founders, the same way a burger to be a burger must have a minimum of beef.

Therefore, finding a fine balance between innovation and tradition should be a never ending pursuit for a wise person. Its first step must be reading some of the founders’ writings.

For those in a hurry, Wikipedia has an entry with a good overview about liberal and liberalism. There you can read that its ancestry goes back four hundred years to the beginning of the English Civil War. With the rise of the Enlightenment, the word acquired a more positive undertone, being defined as "free from narrow prejudice" in 1781. However, the word liberalism only began to be used around 1815, while the Napoleon troops ravaged Europe.

For those with time to follow the development of the liberal doctrines here is a short bibliography of the main classic texts, all of them available in a Kindle Edition at a low price.

John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government (1689) is a good start to understand why people have natural rights and the main purpose of governments is to safeguard such rights. Likewise Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776) provides the basis to understand the role of free markets.

Jeremy Bentham’s An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1781) launched the basis of utilitarianism while John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859) defended the right of individuals to control their own mind and body, guaranteed by limiting the exercise of power to prevent individuals from harming others.

Then the twentieth century brought in a divide about how far the government should go. Now, we have the minimalist and rule based schools (Austrians and Monetarists) and the Keynes-inspired school of discretionary interventionism (in fact most of his followers crossed over to the socialist anti-liberal camp). Here, the two basic references are Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom (1944), showing that reliance on free markets would preclude totalitarian control by the state, and John Maynard Keynes’ General Theory (1936) claiming that in special circumstances, when countries were caught in a liquidity trap, state intervention was indispensible to avoid depressions.

Currently, the two branches are frequently confused by identifying them with conservative or progressive parties. By reading the classics one hopes that a renaissance of liberalism in the 21st century will discard such connotations.

The origins of enlightenment and liberalism

Liberalism and enlightenment are sometimes taken as synonymous. It is true that they are both indispensable pillars of human progress and rose intertwined to preeminence in the middle of the 18th century.

Enlightenment traces its origins to Descartes' Discourse on the Method, published in 1637, while John Locke’s Two Treatises (1690) established the liberal idea that government acquires consent to rule from the governed, not from supernatural authorities. However, they can develop separately and do not need to tag along, in the way the scientific method and the enlightened virtues do.

Besides, there are two distinct schools of enlightenment, the French Enlightenment focused on the power of reason and the members of the British Enlightenment emphasizing its limits. For an excellent summary contrasting the role of these views on reform and gradualism read this post by David Brooks on two theories of change.
 

The misuse of the words liberalism and capitalism

Capitalism and liberalism are among the most misused words in the English language. Some writers often conclude that it is better to replace them with other synonymous. For instance, the late Nobel Laureate John Hicks suggested that we use market economy instead of capitalism. In the case of liberalism, the misuse is even more serious. While in Europe, most people associate liberalism with policies to curb the intrusion of the state in personal lives and the economy, in the US liberalism means exactly the opposite - advocacy for government spending. So let us pick up a dictionary and check both definitions.

Let us start with capitalism. The Webster defines Capitalism as: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. While the Oxford Dictionary on Capitalism defines it as a noun - an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Both definitions leave unanswered the questions concerning the degree of control and the relevance of competitive markets as important qualifiers.

On liberalism, the Webster Dictionary says: suitable for a freeman; not restricted: now only in liberal arts, liberal education, etc. giving freely; generous large or plentiful; ample; abundant a liberal reward not restricted to the literal meaning; not strict a liberal interpretation of the Bible tolerant of views differing from one's own; broad-minded; specif., not orthodox of democratic or republican forms of government, as distinguished from monarchies, aristocracies, etc. favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education, etc.; specif., favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual; progressive designating or of a political party upholding liberal principles, esp. such a party in England or Canada Obsolete excessively free or indecorous in behavior; licentious. And in the Oxford Dictionary: liberal adjective 1 willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own. 2 (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. 3 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform. 4 (Liberal) (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party. 5 (especially of an interpretation of a law) not strictly literal. 6 given, used, or giving in generous amounts. 7 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.

Identifying liberalism with left or right wing policies or parties is also misleading. For instance, Marxists and Trotskyites of diverse types try to vilify liberalism by using the pre-fix neo, but they are not clear about to what type of liberalism they are referring. They may be referring to classical liberalism, or just hoping that the neo-prefix will make it look as evil or backward. American classical-liberals are often conservative. Their classical-liberal (or, if you prefer, libertarian) political values are no more than the application to society at large, and to government, of some of the most fundamental and indispensable rules that every decent person learns early in life and adheres to until death. Civil society is possible because almost everyone abides by these obvious rules against theft, cheating, and initiating violence. For classical-liberals, libertarians abhor the notion of reconstructing the world according to academic notions of how society ought to operate. The reason is that such reconstruction inevitably means that some people—those with state power—are exempted from following the basic rules of decency that we teach to our children and that all the rest of us must follow.

Trying to find new words for capitalism and liberalism will not serve clarification. For example, liberalism is better defined within a broad spectrum, ranging from anarchism, libertarian and classical-liberalism (laissez-faire) to forms of liberal socialism (of the new labor type). The later, ultimately advocates forms of crony capitalism through so-called public-private partnerships and similar policies to blur the state and private sectors for the benefit of organized lobbies and partisan friends.

On the contrary, adding a qualifier to clarify the meaning of capitalism and liberalism as applied in a particular country or by specific authors helps to identify the various shades and forms that they have. In relation to capitalism, we may use qualifications such as market, big business, state, Scandinavian, South European, crony, theocratic, and partisan. Similarly, for liberalism, we may use qualifications such as constitutional, classical, new-Austrian, socialist, American, or individualistic.

We believe that only two forms of liberalism and capitalism are key pillars for the good of humankind – constitutional liberalism and market capitalism. These do not need to have a left or right wing connotation and, in fact, both types of parties may support them. However, it is important that they are well defined to avoid being espoused opportunistically by both and be dismissed immediately when the times change.

By market capitalism, we mean an economic system where most economic interchanges are carried out in competitive atomistic markets. Under normal circumstances, this means keeping to a minimum the share of government, the grey sectors and big corporations in the economy. In addition, independent entities (and not self-preserving bodies) should regulate and prevent them from erecting entry barriers.

We define constitutional liberalism, as a political system based on rules granting a maximum of individual freedom and a minimum of social coercion. This must include the rule of law, separation of powers and the protection of individual liberties from the prying of government, religion, race, or any other special interest groups.

Why only six pillars?

No doubt, the happiness of humanity cannot depend only on six pillars. However, at the dawn of a new millennium, we selected only those that strike us as the most important means to promote human happiness. By focusing on the means rather than the ends, we left out some important values like peace, friendship, family bonds and a healthy body and soul, as these are simultaneously means and ends in the pursuit of joy by humankind.

The most controversial pillar that we have left out is religion. Because of its crucial role to secure compliance with moral values and to help us face death, it should have a prominent role. Yet, since religion is at variance with the scientific method and it is often used to fuel hate and extremism we cannot consider religion as an unequivocal pillar of human betterment.

We see the six pillars as sustaining an equal number of columns in the gate of human progress. We looked for such beautiful gates with an historical significance but all we could find to illustrate our approach were the stone archway at Yuling, in China, and Hadrian’s Gate in the Ancient City of Ephesus in Turkey. Neither is particularly well suited to show the many sides supported by each pillar (so, if you are keen on art and may help us find a more beautiful gate we will be obliged). We are looking to add to each column the many ratings appropriate to monitor the multi-faced nature of the columns supported by each pillar.

Each pillar will be the subject of future posts. For now we close this post with a simply note on their role. The first two – representative democracy and constitutional liberalism are essential to understand how to manage power for the benefit of all. The next pair – market capitalism and productive work – is the key to a prosperous economy. The last two – scientific method and enlightened virtues provide the foundation for a gratifying life that goes beyond the satisfaction of our material needs.