I agree with jurist Ronald Dworkin in his book Life’s Dominion. He states that people wish to ban abortion because they understand there is some intrinsic value to life that must be preserved. However, that sacred value is interpreted differently by different people. It is perfectly possible that the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be made taking into account whether valuing life actually means going ahead with an undesired gestation with little ability to support the future child. It is not a decision the state should be making. This moral issue is best left to the person who will suffer its consequences in her body and mind: the woman.

Feed 44:

• http://www.c4ss.org/
• http://www.youtube.com/user/c4ssvideos
• https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/c4ss-media/id872405202?mt=2
• http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/smash-walls-radio/c4ss-media?refid=stpr
• https://twitter.com/C4SSmedia

Bitcoin tips welcome:

• 1N1pF6fLKAGg4nH7XuqYQbKYXNxCnHBWLB

Jandira’s tragedy is another among the thousands of Brazilian women forced to rely on unsafe abortions because the Brazilian government forbids abortion.

One million abortions are performed every year in Brazil. In Latin America, 95% of the abortions are unsafe, which are defined as a procedure undertaken by an individual with no practice, ability or necessary knowledge, according to gynecologist, obstetrician and representative from the Group of Abortion Studies (GEA) Jefferson Drezett.

The Federal Council of Medicine already recognizes that risky abortions are the fifth most common cause of maternal deaths. Many of these women die or bear terrible aftereffects from them in their bodies.

Some of them were raped, but, even though Brazilian law allows abortions in that case, until the approval of a new piece of legislation in 2013 that mandates care in public hospitals, it was very difficult to have them performed by the public health care system. Without this new law, millions went unprotected, deprived of a basic right even after sexual abuse, something that affected especially poor women. The evangelical conservative caucus in Congress intends to revoke this legslation. Is it fair that Congress should even have that power?

I agree with jurist Ronald Dworkin in his book Life’s Dominion. He states that people wish to ban abortion because they understand there is some intrinsic value to life that must be preserved. However, that sacred value is interpreted differently by different people. It is perfectly possible that the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be made taking into account whether valuing life actually means going ahead with an undesired gestation with little ability to support the future child. It is not a decision the state should be making. This moral issue is best left to the person who will suffer its consequences in her body and mind: the woman.

The story of Marta (fictional name) speaks volumes. A 37-year-old poor woman with only basic education, single mother of three young children, abandoned by the kids’s parents, Marta was unemployed in 2010 when she decided in desperation terminate her pregnancy. She bought abortive pills for $125, money taken from her only source of income, her daughter’s alimony. She utilized the medication incorrectly, causing bleeding and sharp pain. Marta was taken to court for the crime of abortion, reported by the physician who cared for her, and signed a confession to get a conditional suspension of the suit.

Does the state know what this woman’s decision should have been in her circumstances?

Some will say that the historical tradition of a given society should take precedence. But that is the same tradition that, as individualist anarchist Maria Lacerda noted, enshrined the “miserable morals of colonels, cowards, and cretins,” condemning deviant women to the “doors of cheap prostitution, with its misery, brothels, humiliations, sickness in hospitals, and the common gutter.”

Jandira disappeared. It is possible that we will never know what happened. But we do know how to prevent other Jandiras from disappearing in the name of a false morality: let us take the state out of women’s bodies. If necessary, by direct action — Dutch NGO Women on Waves Foundation is working to offer abortion procedures on international waters to women who live in countries where they are still illegal.

We need fewer spaces of power to oppress women and individual autonomy so that they can control their own bodies and make important moral decisions by themselves. If not, Brazilian women will never be safe from state aggression and social stigma. Abortion must be legal. Now.

Translated into English by Erick Vasconcelos.

Does this mean we left-libertarian market anarchists are better off embracing the Nevada GOP as a vehicle for libertarian reform? Not at all. The Nevada GOP is probably still, on balance, far from embracing radically limited government. We’re also anarchists and not interested in even very small government. I mention this, because an anarchist may still prefer an extremely tiny government to a larger one in relative terms. This would only hold true as long as government existed.

What about the option of infiltrating the Nevada GOP and striving to push it in a more radically libertarian direction? This is arguably a waste of resources that could be spent on building anarchy. We would have to hide our left-libertarian market anarchist identity. There would otherwise be a backlash against the “evil” anarchist entryists. It’s important to remember that statists at least sometimes deal with disagreement by initiating force via the government, so we left-libertarian market anarchists would be subject to said force by the Nevada GOP. As long as they continued to embrace the institution of government at least.

An interesting question is whether this will have an impact on the broader GOP. If the Nevada GOP is more successful at the polls, other state parties and even the national organization may decide to embrace its approach. This would be encouraging and have a positive impact on the politics of the U.S. It’s something to welcome, but it shouldn’t distract us from achieving anarchism. It would lighten the burden of statism on women and same-sex marriage, so there is merit in pursuing this kind of reform. As long as it doesn’t mean abandoning the goal of creating anarchy. That is our ultimate goal.

The final point to make is that this does represent progress, but it’s fairly limited. The next step is to actively embrace the pro-liberty position on both issues. Let’s encourage our GOP friends to go the distance and really embrace freedom. You can let them know that left-libertarian market anarchism is the true embodiment of the sometimes freedom friendly rhetoric of the GOP. It’s also a good idea to spread this message to your Democratic Party friends and anyone else who will listen. There is great disillusionment with the existing political system. The time is ripe for friends of freedom to convince others of the morality and practicality of our vision. It’s better to act before this despair disappears. We may never get a better time than now to act. Let’s work on creating a free society.