Thread by @scott_m_coley

Nowhere is the moral fragmentation of American evangelicalism more apparent than in many white evangelicals’ frail embrace of the right to life.

According to the pro-life position, all persons—including both born and unborn persons—have a “right to life,” and that right should be protected by the force of law.

But many evangelical Christians who self-identify as “pro-life” are also healthcare libertarians.

According to healthcare libertarians, we shouldn’t have laws that ensure widespread access to healthcare—or the taxes and administrative burdens that would follow upon such laws.

Healthcare libertarianism is demonstrably at odds with the pro-life position.

Imagine that the Smiths conceive a child—‘Baby Smith’. On the same day that Baby Smith is conceived, the Roes conceive a child—‘Baby Roe’.

The Smiths’ income places them around the poverty line. Because they desperately need the money, Mrs. Smith continues working at her stressful and physically demanding job throughout the pregnancy.

Stress is a risk factor for preterm term labor. Poverty (which happens to be stressful) is a distinct risk factor for preterm labor. So let’s suppose that Baby Smith is born exactly 32 weeks after conception, which is two months before his due date.

Baby Smith’s outlook is good, provided he receives appropriate medical care—a few weeks in the NICU at minimum. But Baby Smith will die without extensive and costly medical intervention.

So it is unfortunate for Baby Smith that his parents don’t have health insurance.

For our purposes, it doesn’t matter why—maybe neither of the Smiths qualify for health benefits at work and they can’t afford a plan on the individual market. Or maybe they’re just irresponsible.

(Nor does it matter that the Smiths might exploit legal loopholes in order to secure medical treatment for Baby Smith. The point is that the Smiths don’t have health insurance and they can’t pay the NICU bill. So Baby Smith isn’t straightforwardly entitled to receive care.)

Now, on the very same day that Baby Smith is born, Baby Roe’s parents walk into an abortion clinic with the intention of aborting Baby Roe—two months before Baby Roe's due date.

According to the pro-life position, both Baby Roe and Baby Smith have a right to life that should be protected by the force of law. Both are persons; and both will die if no one intervenes.

But healthcare libertarians claim that there’s no reason why *the government* should intervene to enforce Baby Smith’s right to life—they say, e.g., the Smiths could petition a charity for financial assistance. There's no need to enforce Baby Smith’s right to life once he's born.

But that would mean that it is up to private citizens to protect Baby Smith’s right to life—which is problematic, since there's no reason why Baby Roe’s right to life should be protected by law, but not Baby Smith’s.

If intervention from private citizens is an acceptable enforcement mechanism for Baby Smith’s right to life, then why shouldn’t Baby Roe’s right to life be safeguarded by the moral suasion of picketers outside abortion clinics, or friends and family, etc.? What’s the difference?

One popular answer is that Baby Roe’s right to life requires legal enforcement because Baby Roe is defenseless. But Baby Smith is equally defenseless. And so is every child, in the sense that no child is capable of providing for his own survival.

So if Baby Roe’s right to life should be protected by law because he’s defenseless, then Baby Smith’s right to life should be protected by law as well—and so, for that matter, should every child’s right to life.

A natural objection here is that Baby Roe’s situation is different because his right to life is under immanent threat by people who are attempting to kill him; and we need laws to stop the killing. This isn’t true in the case of Baby Smith (or infirm children more generally).

But according to the pro-life position, persons have a right to *life*, not just a right to not be killed.

So if you’re a healthcare libertarian and you can’t identify any morally salient difference between Baby Roe and Baby Smith, then you shouldn’t claim to be pro-life;

or you should stop being a healthcare libertarian and advocate for laws that protect the right to life—even if it means you have to pay more taxes, etc.