Abortion is often framed as the cornerstone of women’s rights. But what if that framing is not only mistaken, but actively harmful to women? In this episode of the Libertarian Christian Podcast, Kerry Baldwin argues that biology and a proper understanding of justice from a libertarian perspective lead us inevitably to the conclusion that abortion doesn’t protect women’s rights.
Baldwin challenges the dominant narrative by showing how abortion arguments routinely erase women’s agency, misidentify the aggressor in cases like rape (hint: it’s not the unborn child), and rely on analogies that collapse under scrutiny. She also explains why fetal self‑ownership is not a threat to women but a necessary component of a consistent rights framework.
You’ll have to listen to the episode for her full argument, but here’s a few reasons why abortion doesn’t protect women’s rights.
The standard pro‑choice narrative treats pregnancy as something done to a woman rather than something that arises from her own embodied agency. Baldwin argues that this framing strips women of responsibility and power. A rights framework that infantilizes women cannot protect them.
In rape cases, abortion arguments often treat the fetus as the violator. Baldwin insists the true aggressor is the rapist, and shifting blame to the unborn child lets the criminal off the hook. A just system must identify the correct rights‑violator.
Pro‑choice analogies which compare the fetus to trespassers or parasites fail because pregnancy is a unique biological relationship. The fetus does not cross a boundary; it comes into existence through the parents’ actions. Analogies that ignore this reality distort women’s rights rather than defend them.
Baldwin argues that recognizing fetal rights does not diminish women’s rights but clarifies them. A consistent libertarian ethic cannot arbitrarily exclude a class of humans from self‑ownership. Protecting the smallest rights‑bearers reinforces the universality of rights for everyone, including women.
In rape, the woman did not choose the act that resulted in pregnancy. Yet Baldwin argues that abortion still targets the wrong party. The fetus is a second victim, not an aggressor. Justice requires restitution from the rapist, not violence against the unborn.
The heart of Baldwin’s argument is simple: rights are universal or they are meaningless. A framework that protects both mother and child is the only one that truly protects women. Abortion cannot secure women’s rights because it requires denying someone else’s.
The claim that abortion is essential to women’s rights collapses under scrutiny. Abortion misidentifies aggressors, undermines women’s agency, and distracts from the real reforms—legal and economic—that women actually need.
A society that protects both mother and child is not only possible but necessary for a consistent defense of human rights. When rights are grounded in self‑ownership, justice, and voluntary cooperation, women gain far more than abortion could ever offer.
The path forward is not violence against the smallest humans but a renewed commitment to liberty, justice, and the dignity of every person.
Sign up and receive updates any day we publish a new article or podcast episode!