What is innocence? To me it is the understanding that a living being is incapable of defending itself, unaware of danger or simply, (according to Webster)


a : free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil

I have a long time friend who is very much pro-abortion. I’m pro personal rights, pro individual liberty, pro personal responsibility, pro freedom.  I, however, am not an anarchist and simply believe the government exists to perform a particular set of basic functions in order to preserve a free society.  You’ve heard me say this before, but these are what I believe the government is inherently responsible for in a nutshell:

1) Defense; protection from foreign enemies, against harm from other individuals infringing your right to life.

2) Defending property rights; providing a just legal system in which both private and public parties are able to seek reparations from fraud, abuse, or crime.

And that’s pretty well it. It is not an anarchist point of view, merely a pro freedom point of view.  I had to lay this out on the table to be extra clear in my defense of how important it is to protect the innocent.  I’m very certain that everyone agrees the government has a basic duty to protect the innocent. Children, babies, and the elderly, for example.

I have many friends who are pro-abortion, yet also claim to be libertarians or at least stand for the rhetorical implication of the word freedom.

Does the government not have a fundamental duty to protect life? Why is the life of an unborn infant any different from the life of a 1 day old baby? Did the infant suddenly become human once removed from the womb?

If I caused a car accident and that accident involved a pregnant woman whose child died as a result of the accident, would I not be charged with vehicular homicide? Or could I construct a solid legal defense based on the philosophy that because the baby wasn’t born yet, it isn’t human or at least not a life worth protecting.

Pro-choice advocates often make the case that disallowing a woman to have an abortion is identical to forcing a woman to have a child.  Let me ask you this: Was the woman forced to have sex? If the answer is no then you cannot force her to have a child.

Anyone of reproductive age generally understands that intercourse is the means by which babies are crafted.  It is my personal belief that if you drive a car on the road you should understand that there are consequences for driving that car. I.e. the risk of causing or being involved in an accident and therefore being responsible for the consequences therein. It is a fundamental notion that everyone understands. Why does the same principle not apply to sex? If you’re going to have sex, something not essential to preserving your life, you must be beholden to the understanding that there is a possibility you may have a child as that is the primary purpose of sex.

Government has the sole purpose of protecting the innocent and protecting life and liberty. Why is that right denied to an unborn child?  Why isn’t this idea progressive?  If an unborn life is so inconsequential, based on the theory of time since creation, why not make it a misdemeanor to kill a 3-year-old, and a felony to kill a 20-year-old?  Is it more palatable, socially speaking, to kill a 40-year-old than a 14-year-old? Why isn’t the 14-year-old life less significant?

Like Ronald Reagan or not, after reading this I hope this strikes home with my argument:

“I notice that everybody who is Pro-Abortion has already been born.”