CHOOSE, THEN LIVE WITH YOUR CHOICE:

The Real Meaning of Choice: Dealing, Politically, with Abortion (Doug Bandow, November 26, 2002, Cato)

[T]he point of restricting "the right to choose" an abortion is not to spitefully penalize those who do not accept traditional Judeo-Christian ethics, or any other moral code, but to ensure that everyone accepts responsibility for the serious consequences -- a life -- of their sexual choices. Of course, even broadly "pro-life" people are likely to disagree on the exact parameters of the putative parents' duties: In truth, the "hard" cases are hard. Nevertheless, there are easy cases too, like abortion as a form of late birth control to make up for an earlier evening's pleasure and as a means of sex selection, usually to ensure the birth of a boy. These "choices" surely do not have the same moral weight as a decision to abort made by a woman whose life is in danger or who has been raped.

Of course, moral surrender by refusing to hold people responsible for their sexual choices may look attractive when one assesses the difficulties in actually banning abortion. No one who supports individual freedom can be enthused about allowing the state to intrude so dramatically into private lives. But the fact that life is at stake requires us to make some hard decisions involving the balance between life and liberty. The very complexity of the issue means that abortion cannot be justified as a simplistic commitment to "choice," irrespective of the circumstances. [...]

Today people are free to choose whether -- and when and with whom -- to have sex. People who create children as a result, even inadvertently, should be willing to accept responsibility for the consequences of their choices. Unrestricted abortion, in contrast, allows everyone, men as well aswomen, to avoid dealing with the results of choices freely made.

That's why abortion is, appropriately, a political issue. And why the newly empowered Republican congressional majority, if it is serious about governing, must confront the issue.

It's interesting that though this was originally published in National Review, it now appears at the Cato website. It will be much easier, though still difficult, for the GOP to put together a longterm governing majority if they can get social conservatives and libertarians to work together, instead of against each other. This kind of recognition that rights carry with them responsibilities and consequences, along with the two groups joint interest in things like school vouchers, holds out some promise that there may be grounds for a reconciliation. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 26, 2002 1:07 PM