Why being prolife is a libertarian position


The topic of abortion is a heated topic in society, with pro-life and pro-choice crowds often getting extremely heated. Pro-choice crowds take the position that a woman’s body comes before the child, who is apparently not even a human. Pro-life crowds take the position that the woman’s body and the child’s body have equal rights to life, but more importantly, the child is a human being and his or her right to life cannot be overruled by another individual’s.

Then there is the libertarian debate.

Libertarians often have a reputation in the mainstream of taking the position of the left-leaning Libertarian Party, which is that government has no role in abortion. Pro-life libertarians argue the opposite, stating that if we are to protect freedom, we must protect the right to life.

Which side is correct?

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, said in 1809, “The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.”

Government was created by the people to protect their freedom. Through liberty, we are free to pursue happiness and seek our own path for our lives, so long as it does not injure another’s. But absolutely critical to the point, is our right to exist and to live. This is why murder is illegal.

The Libertarian Party, followed by a certain element of the liberty movement, believes that government has no role in abortion or that the topic should be decided by the states. Should matters of life be decided by the state? Or should life be something that is universally accepted with our right to exist unquestioned?

Women, like all human beings, have a right to their own bodies. This is what makes laws regulating how we maintain our bodies wrong. Does the government have a right to tell you what you can and cannot put in your body? Does the government have the right to tell you cannot seek certain treatments if you are suffering from an illness?

Obviously the government does not, and this is because the government should have no control over our bodies. Being free means we have a right to exist and that existence is only free if our own individual bodies are not subject to the approval of others.

Hence why children have a right to live. Government should not be in the business of sanctioning the forced conclusion of life. China for years has had a government policy dictating how many children a family can have. When the family had their one child allowed under the law, sterilizations entered play and children were aborted at all stages of the pregnancy. This was allowed because in China because government had an official policy of determining life.

If we are to be free, we cannot allow the government to have an official policy determining life. All life is sacred and thus, all life should be protected. There shouldn’t be laws granting executions of innocent life at certain stages because of any given political opinion. The life of a human being is not a political debate, because the right to life is at the heart of what freedom is. It is the foundation of liberty.

Libertarians should seek to protect all life. Whether you’re unborn, one year old or a hundred years old, your life is precious and sacred. This is the position of freedom and liberty.

Chris Dixon is a liberty activist and writer from Maine. In addition to being Managing Editor for the Liberty Conservative, he also writes the Bangor Daily News blog "Undercover Porcupine" and for sports website Cleatgeeks.


  1. So if “we cannot allow the government to have an official policy determining life”, are you simply saying the abortion industry should be totally free-market? That is, no government funding for them, but also no stated policy for/against them? Your article kind of leaves things hanging…

    • Absolutely not. When I said no to government policy on life, I was more alluding to what I’d discussed with the Chinese and government regulating what is life.

      As stated throughout the article, life should be protected regardless of age, and that’s why abortion is contrary to liberty.

      • So you’re advocating abortion being made illegal with women and doctors being punished under the law? I’m pro-life, but believe it’s a hearts and minds issue. I believe a middle road for Libertarians would be to advocate for federal government to get out of the business of abortions through cutting off of funding. Then, also advocate an anti-death penalty stance for an entire culture of life.

Comments are closed.

Latest from Philosophy

Thanks for visiting our site! Stay in touch with us by subscribing to our newsletter. You will receive all of our latest updates, articles, endorsements, interviews, and videos direct to your inbox.