Michael H. Wilson: Women Need Choice in Childbirth

I think most people here would agree that if you are selling something, whether it is a house, car or computer, you need to explain in some detail the benefits of your product, or solution.

With that in mind here is one of the best pieces from a Libertarian on health care that I have seen in some time. http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/heres-why-women-need-to-know-their-rights-during-childbirth/

In the LP we are willing to support a woman’s right to choose to carry a child to term, but once inside the delivery room we seem to forget that choice remains important. When it comes to the rights of people to choose with healthcare we tend to stop at the door of the hospital.

Woman vote in numbers that surpass men and healthcare is an important issue in American politics, but we seem to miss the point that promoting issues that women might be interested in has some value. Protecting an expectant mother’s right to choose a midwife, regardless of whether that is a nurse midwife, or a direct entry midwife should not be an issue with us, nor should the place of birth. If the mother wishes to have her child at home, or in a birthing clinic instead of a hospital, we should be supporting that decision.

Promoting a free market in health care requires us to dig into the issue. If we expect to win elections we need to promote issues that have a direct impact on people.

This entry was posted in Libertarian Party on by .

About Caryn Ann Harlos

Caryn Ann Harlos is a paralegal residing in Castle Rock, Colorado and presently serving as the Communications Director for the Libertarian Party of Colorado, Colorado State Coordinator for the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus, as well as Region 1 Representative on the Libertarian National Committee. Articles posted should NOT be considered the opinions of the LPCO, LPRC, or LNC nor always those of Caryn Ann Harlos personally. Caryn Ann’s goal is to provide information on items of interest and (sometimes) controversy about the Libertarian Party and minor parties in general not to necessarily endorse the contents.

6 thoughts on “Michael H. Wilson: Women Need Choice in Childbirth

  1. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Attention! Women are more than birthing machines.

    There is a range of reproductive rights. Rights to contraception clearly are of interest to both men and women. Issues include sex education, methods, “morning after” contragestive pills.

    From the point pregnancy is known, women have the greater interest in issues of reproductive rights including pregnancy (prenatal testing, fetal surgery, work and personal behavior during pregnancy, voluntary surrogacy); abortion (consent of parents or sex partners, government-mandated waiting periods, indoctrination on medical risks or fetal development, government restrictions on sex selection or abortion of physically deformed fetuses, government-mandated sterilization or abortion, disposal of fetal remains); and birth (home birth, Caesarean vs natural birth) – plus other issues mentioned in the article.

    The issue of artificial wombs may be of speculative interest, but the truth is even if it was possible to transfer a fetus to an artificial womb, the procedure would be chosen by very few women. It would still be a procedure more dangerous to the woman; donating women doubtless would expect someone else would to pay for the very expensive procedure; and many women would prefer to see their genetic issue destroyed in the first few weeks (as happens with so many early term fetuses anyway), than be birthed and raised by people she would no know who could be neglectful or abusive.

    So let’s not skip over the issues of contraception, pregnancy and abortion as if they are irrelevant. And don’t insult women with this fantasy about transferring fetuses to wombs. This whole line is just a political cop out to keep the abortion prohibitonists happy.

    But there are tens of millions of women in this country who cherish their liberty and don’t care much about abortion prohibitionists’ alleged consciences and whether they are under the delusion prohibitionism is compatible with the non-aggression principle. So they won’t buy this abortion prohibitionist baloney that Ms. Harlos and her ilk are trying to foist upon us.

  2. Kevin S Bjornson

    One of the reasons for declining birthrates in developed countries, is that self-styled feminists often have a chip on the shoulder attitude toward men. Even when offered an opportunity to avoid bearing children while still creating them, some would rather continue to hold the human race hostage to their demands for dominance.

    The creation of children by traditional methods, is a collaborative process involving both men and women. Men tend to engage in more hazardous work, which pays more, in order to support pregnant women and the resulting family. As a result, men tend to live not as long as women. So both sexes have approximately an equal stake in the process, as well as the outcome.

    You don’t know, but assume, that transferring a fetus to an artificial womb, to be more dangerous than transferring a fetus to a garbage pail. You further assume, that eggs cannot be fertilized in vitro, and grown entirely outside the female human womb.

    Such entirely artificial wombs would free women from their traditional physical difficulties, while also freeing men from having to concede to female demands in order for the human race to continue.

  3. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    When you get the technology perfected so it doesn’t kill more that .02 percent in the womb and then arrange the $50,000 to buy a fetus and the $50,000 to raise it in the bag and the $10,000+ a year to raise the kid (plus child care costs) for 18 years, pro-choicers will bother to spend time discussing it. In the mean time see lots of links to news stories under:

    http://pro-choicelibertarians.net/links/#legislation mounting legislation vs reproductive rights and abortion

    http://pro-choicelibertarians.net/links/#GOPmotivations evil power hungry motivations of GOP

    http://pro-choicelibertarians.net/links/#consequenceswomen women’s lives and liberty at risk

  4. Kevin S Bjornson

    Costs might be high now, but that is due to government regulations. Getting FDA approval is a major obstacle. Plus I don’t think this has been legalized yet, for humans.

    Once legal obstacles are removed, costs could be brought down further by mass production. I think traditional adoptions are not cheap either. Probably they would pay more for newborn, as adopted children are usually in their teens, and come with problems.

    I’m not sure why you’re worried about killing less than .02% in the womb; as abortions kill 100% and eggs could be harvested safely.

    There are many adoptive parents who are infertile and would gladly pay for a newborn baby form good genetic stock. Those fetuses and eggs/sperm not from good genetic stock, are not needed in any event. Margaret Sanger had a similar viewpoint, i believe.

    The human race should continue, increase, and thrive; and attention should be paid to quality.

  5. Kevin S Bjornson

    Now, typically, egg donors receive about $10,000 compensation. The eggs are fertilized in vitro.

Leave a Reply

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