Greetings fellow freedom-lovers!  I am a member of the San Diego Liberty 
Toastmasters Club, peopled mostly with Libertarians, and I wrote my
second speech (the 'Be In Earnest' standard manual speech) on a proposed
futurist reconciliation of the two major sides of the abortion debate, 
using fundamental libertarian principles as my tools.  

I would like to get constructive (ie, extropic) feedback regarding my 
thesis (as opposed to destructive criticism).  Of course, if you have 
serious objections to any of the points I've raised, please let me know 
about them and tell me why they aren't up-to-par, and please offer 
better ones in their place.  I'm going for a synthesis (vs. taking 
a stand on one side), so I want to consider a diversity of viewpoints. 

Please direct your comments to me by email (mcpherso@macvax.ucsd.edu).
To repeat, I'm not trying to start a flame war.  Also, I'm not the most 
polished thinker-speaker, so there are bound to be some flaws in what 
I've done.  If you are aware of a fuller analysis along these lines, 
or of relevant developments that I haven't yet included, please send me 
references!  Thank you.

(Aside to EXI:
This essay will eventually be copy-left-right-upsidedown-and-sideways.
Go ahead and place this version of it in the ftp site, although I will
probably want to replace it with an updated version later.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

                   "Pro-choice and Pro-life"
                  speech by John D. McPherson

       Abortion Rights!  Abomination!  Free-choice!  Murder!  

  Such are the cries on the two major sides of one of today's most 
heated debates.  Who's right?  Who's wrong?  Is there any hope for a 
happy reconciliation between them?

  Each side has their valid points, and yet, each side fights to reject 
those of the other, probably out of fear of losing ground on their own 
priorities.  Legislative and judicial concessions are granted to one
side or the other, but there is never a solution satisfying all.

  Due to the importance of this issue, there are some basic human 
rights at risk, and each side is currently posing a threat to them.

  On one hand, the pro-choicers overlook a basic respect for life, which 
induces in myself and others an unsettling moral nausea.  Pro-choicers seem
to view abortion as a necessary evil, and perhaps we should consider that
there is in fact an evil there.  It's kind of like 2 cheers for abortion rights.

  On the other hand, many pro-lifers encourage flouting of property rights 
and seek to seriously limit certain personal freedoms, such as the right of
self-determination.

  Neither of these alternatives are fully acceptable to me, and tonight I am
going to present to you an approach which will preserve liberty, and which 
I hope will appeal to both sides of the debate.

  In looking at this issue, I broke it down into its essential components
in an effort to find a resolution to the dilemma.  I came up with 5 key 
components, which I think are sufficient to understand the problem
and which can be used to indicate the criteria for a solution: (counting on
fingers) the woman's right of self-ownership, the fetus's right to live, the
woman's property rights, the purported "right" of the fetus to be supported
by the woman, and the fact that a wanted child is supported voluntarily.

  First, the woman has the absolute right of self-ownership.  She owns her 
own body, and has the right of final say over it in all matters, including 
whether or not to carry the fetus.
This is the main concern of the pro-choice camp.

  Second, for the purpose of my analysis, I'm positing that the fetus has
a natural right to live.
This is the central premise of the pro-life camp.  In fact, many of them believe
it so strongly that they are willing to risk jail and beatings, for trespassing
on and damaging private property, blocading clinics, and the like.

  Third, the woman (and man) has the right of ownership of their own
property, labor, time and money.  They have the natural right to use them,
dispose of them, etc. however they see fit, including the matter of
whether or not to support a child.  Couples should have the right to
choose their own future, whether or not "accidents" happen.
This is the second major point of the pro-choice camp.

  Fourth, there is the purported "right" of the fetus (or child) to be 
supported at the expense of the couple, whether or not they are 
willing to do so.  This point is tacitly accepted by both sides.  Many 
pro-lifers seem to take it for granted, and many pro-choicers, acknowledging
the point, seek to prevent the "necessity" of taking on the burden of
responsibility through the vehicle of abortion.
  I submit that this point is the cause of bitterness on both sides.  
Taking a closer look, it translates to "human #1 has the right to be 
supported by human #2, whether or not #2 likes it, by force of law."  This,
ladies and gentlemen, as I'm sure you'll recognize, is a core tenet of 
socialism.  
  As a freedom-loving human being, I utterly reject this notion.  It's 
morally obscene to force a woman to go through the ordeal of childbirth, and 
to shackle her and her mate to the care and nurturance of a new human life
whose very existence they despise.

  Fifth, and of crucial importance, is that when a child is planned
and _wanted_, most people are more than willing to take on the 
responsibility of supporting and nurturing that child, because it is a 
cherished value to them.  It is their joy, pleasure, and deep desire to
provide care for it.  It is a priviledge and unparalleled experience to
raise and help a human being become happy, productive and self-responsible,
to enable them to take care of themselves, go out into the world, and to 
make it.  This is an entirely voluntary action, and that's why it works.  
A chosen value engenders benevolence and happiness.
  This point is alluded to by both sides, but I don't think that it has
received the recognition that is its due.

  So, these are the 5 considerations.  Taken in isolation, I submit that
most Americans would support the right to be alive, the rights of self-
and property ownership, and the right to pursue freely-chosen values. 
They make sense and are fair.
   The bone of contention lies in the issue of the validity of forcing 
someone to support someone else.  This is the monkey wrench in the works, 
and I suggest that we throw it out.  It is a vicious idea, and should be 
denounced and rooted out of _all_ human interactions, especially where 
resentments will be taken out on unwanted children.


  Having thrown it out, a solution presented itself to me, and I'd like to
illustrate that solution with a story:

    The year is 1998.  Mary, who is pregnant and does not want a child,
makes an appointment with her doctor who performs a fetal extraction, 
that is, s/he removes the living fetus and hooks it up into an artificial-womb
life support unit.  Previously, the "Second Chance" benefactor agency, 
staffed and funded by a coalition of former pro-lifers and pro-choicers,
has made arrangements to pay for the life support of the fetus.
They are searching their "Parent-Finder" network for an appropriate and
willing couple who might wish to adopt the fetus, bring it to full term,
and raise the child.  Their "match" ratio has been about 1 in 20, which
has earned them the honor of being the top benefactor agency in the 
country, and has attracted the generous donations of numerous supporters.
So far, Second Chance has managed to send and partially support an additional
1 out of 20 to the "Church of Divine Nurture" which runs an orphanage.  The 
remaining fetuses are delivered to the Alcor Fetal Cryonics Center, 
where they are frozen with a special vitrification process, shown to 
have a high degree of success with animal fetuses.  With each of these 
"patients" is stored a dossier containing a genetic print, vitrification
records, and comments of the donor-mother.  They lay in wait for their 
eventual re-animation.  
  Mary is relieved, and her conscience is clear since she has not caused 
the fetus to be terminated. 

It's now 20 years later.  We're in a recently established colony on Mars.
The inhabitants are ready to expand their operations, and are eager to 
place a request for 1000 fetuses which they have pre-selected on the 
basis of the records stored with the fetal patients.  Several years ago, the 
primary colony-city, "New Libertaria", received their requested 10,000 fetuses 
and began the process of incremental reanimation.  Their nurseries are full, 
and their initial experiences with nannies and shared parenting have resulted 
in success.  There is now a strong population of youths eager to push forward 
the latest and greatest project, the terraforming of Mars.  Some of the new 
generation have ambitions of exploring and colonizing the moons of Jupiter 
and Saturn.

  The point of my "flight of the imagination" is to show that there is, in 
principle, a resolution of the abortion dilemma consistent with the natural rights 
that I mentioned:  The woman owns her own body and has the right to have the
living fetus removed.  The fetus retains its right to live.  The woman is free
of any obligation to further support the fetus, thereby retaining her rights of
self-determination and property ownership.  The fetus is supported by
voluntary arrangements, either through an adopting couple, an orphanage, donation-
supported cryonic storage, or the eventual desire of space colonists for 
accelerating the growth of their local populations. (which some may consider
a little "far-fetched", but I _have_ to believe that human beings will someday 
head for the stars ... and of course there will be plenty of living room!)


  So, where are we now?  This solution only lacks the technology to make 
it a reality: (counting on fingers) fetal extractions, artificial wombs, 
inter-uterine fetal transplants and cryonic suspension, and the willingness and 
organization to make it happen.  I submit that if we advocate this solution, a 
market will be created and empowered for these developments, that people will 
push for this research and design with their dollars and moral support, and that 
this effort will actually speed up the time of its arrival.  Among the researchers 
most likely to move quickly in this direction would be those in human life support
systems, suspended animation, and life extension.  They would probably be eager to
study and develop these techniques.
   Alternatively, perhaps some entrepreneurs will be inspired by this advocacy to 
independently pursue their own design efforts, develop the new technology, 
advertise and attract a market for it, thus getting the idea out into the culture 
in a concrete and immediately useful form.  Once it is in the market, some 
people who otherwise would choose abortion, will consider its merits and choose it
instead.  Eventually, the technique of "abortion" will be seen in our museums, 
next to bloodletting, leeches, and pre-frontal lobotomies.
   Already, we have heart-lung machines, at least two private companies (Alcor,
for instance) conducting cryonics research, and I've heard that  "inter-uterine 
adoption" (moving the fetus from the body of one woman to another) has been done 
successfully with animals.


  Of course, there are some practical considerations that I haven't fully 
thought out, such as: 

  What punishment, if any, should be imposed upon a doctor who accidently 
kills a fetus during extraction or freezing?
  I would prefer not to punish doctors for honest accidents, but perhaps 
there should be some dis-incentive.  This is related to the larger question
"What punishment should there be for a doctor who looses a patient?", for 
which I haven't yet come up with a clear answer.

  Will pro-lifers be willing to shift some of their energy into the advocacy and
support of this voluntary solution, in addition to, or perhaps in place of,
governmental restrictions?
  This medical solution may be their best shot for some measure of justice, has 
the virtue of being a positive approach, and I think it possesses a certain 
nobility, so I would encourage them to support it.

  Should abortion, at some point, be outlawed?
  I would prefer not to, especially at first, since it wouldn't be practical to 
only allow extractions.  When the procedure becomes utterly commonplace, perhaps
then it will be a different story.  In the meantime, however, I would prefer to 
use positive incentives and market forces to encourage these alternatives.

  What happens to an extracted fetus if no one shows up to support it?
  Well, perhaps minimal-cost freezing could be applied by willing hospitals
as a better-than-nothing solution, and notices could be posted to inform 
individuals and organizations of the availability of those fetuses.

  How much will this type of a solution cost?
  My guess is that it will be at its most expensive at the beginning, and would 
then drop in price as it becomes more commonplace.  What these prices will be,
I have no idea.

  What shall we call advocators of this approach?
  I don't know!  Obviously, they would be "both pro-choice _and_ pro-life", 
but it would be nice to have a catchy two-syllable word to capture the essence
of the approach.  (Suggestions anyone?)


  I haven't worked out all the details, but the point is: there is a 
market solution to the social problem of abortion, and it reconciles the 
two major sides of the debate.  It is therefore a _consensus_ solution
as opposed to a majority solution, and it is fully consistent with natural 
rights.  Therefore, I believe it is a solution worthy of the advocacy and
support of everyone concerned about the problem, and especially of libertarians.

  Mr / Madam Toastmaster.