Kerry Baldwin’s

Libertarian View of Abortion

Conflict on the issue of abortion exists and is escalating, because of one thing: compromise.

Both sides compromise rights. Pro-lifers compromise women’s rights in favor of the fetus. Pro-choicers compromise fetal rights in favor of the woman.

compromise, even a principled one, begets ambiguity.

The purpose in using property rights to articulate human rights is to make human rights clear and unambiguous. Toward this end, no theory of human rights can be valid if it compromises the rights of half the world’s population and their offspring. It’s my contention that resolving the property rights concerns between women and their offspring is the final hurdle in the centuries old battle in a full, comprehensive, and accurate theory of rights.

I hold that a libertarian view of property rights will resolve this problem, and my research is working toward that end.

Dare to Think About Abortion

How the Prolife Movement is Aborting a Prolife Era

Against The Christian Feminist View of Abortion

Libertarianism, Abortion, and Fetal Self-Ownership (1 of 2)

Libertarianism, Abortion, and Fetal Self-Ownership (2 of 2)

Todd Lund
Read More
This is one of the greatest debates I have ever seen. EVER and I have seen allot of them. Very good, to the both of you.
Dan F
Read More
This is perhaps the sticking issue that has kept me from switching to Libertarian, so I am glad to see it seriously debated here from a "right to life" perspective. It's nice to know there is room in the Libertarian tent for those who think there isn't some special category of "women's rights" that permits violation of more fundamental human rights.
Vogner Richard
Read More
You are the BOMB! Anyone who can go toe to toe with Walter like you did. Thank you Carrie thank you, thank you.
Crystal Nevarez
Read More
I am delighted that this woman, Kerry, exists. What a great illumination of the dignity of women and all human beings. How wonderful to see reason rooted in natural order. A lot of abortion discussion seems to stem from the way way people psychologically wrestle with the parts of nature over which they have no control.

The Soho Forum Debate

While a pregnant woman should be legally required to help the fetus survive outside of her body whenever that is possible, she should retain the legal right to evict the fetus at any time during her pregnancy.

Hosted by The Soho Forum in NYC on December 8, 2019. It featured Ph.D Economist and anarchist theorist, Walter Block, arguing for the resolution and Kerry Baldwin arguing against it. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated. It was an Oxford-style debate. 

The Bob Murphy Show

Robert Murphy is a Christian and economist, Research Assistant Professor with the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech, Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute, and co-host with Tom Woods of the podcast “Contra Krugman.”

Murphy interviewed Kerry Baldwin to discuss her debate with Walter Block and how property rights corrects both sides of the abortion debate

Abortion Article and podcast Archive

Guest appearances

Christian libertarian alliance against abortion

Don't Tread on Me; Christian-Libertarian Alliance

Pro-life Libertarian Women Redefine Abortion Debate

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Abortion, and Al Mohler

Kerry Baldwin and Dick Clark Libertarian Christian Institute


“You’re a Christian! Why aren’t you making the case that abortion is sinful?”

There are many different ways to make an argument. Some are better than others.

The typical argument is to make a moral case for or against abortion. Those who’ve argued abortion is immoral (or sinful) have failed to be persuasive. This should come as no surprise to Bible-believing Christians, for it is the Holy Spirit who will convict people of their sin, not the intellectual ascent of the human mind. (John 18:8)

The complexity of the situation of unwanted pregnancy is never cut and dry. Both sides of what I call the conventional abortion debate (the prevailing left-right paradigm of the past 50 years), fail to account for this complexity. Accounting for the complexity is certainly no justification to oversimplify or offer reductionist or dismissive arguments. Many believe a woman is choosing is “the lesser of two evils.”

I agree that abortion is sinful. (Gen. 1:27, Ps. 22:10; 127:3-5; 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5, Numbers 5:27-28, Proverbs 6:16-19, Job 31:15, Isaiah 49:15, Ex 20:30)

But I also acknowledge the moral argument against abortion is unpersuasive itself. God gave us more than his special revelation in Scripture. He gave his general revelation in his creation. It God’s revelation in creation that doesn’t require the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit to convict people of the truth. Acts 14:17, Rom 1:19-20; 2:14-15, Ps. 19:1-4, 

I believe in leveraging the power of God’s general revelation to persuade an unbelieving world of the truth of abortion, and more broadly rights of reproduction, and the reconciliation of women’s and children’s rights.

Strict pro-lifers, including Abortion Abolitionists, are outraged that society is not persuaded. And perhaps that’s reason enough to be outraged. However, outrage won’t successfully advance the cause of human rights for women and the unborn. And that’s why I’ve chosen a different approach.

“How can a Christian advocate for ending the practice of abortion, without expecting conversion to Christianity as well?”

I answer this question with a question: if God’s law cannot bring us to repentance (Romans 8:3-5), on what basis do you suppose man’s law will?

Is man’s law somehow superior to God’s law? Seems like a strange position to take as a Christian. No historic reformed confession holds that civil authorities are a means of Grace. Therefore we cannot construe the civil law as having affect on Regeneration of the heart. Moreover, the requirements of God’s law for salvation are not fulfilled by Christian converts. Only Christ’s active and passive obedience has fulfilled the Law of God. Christ’s fulfillment of the law, and propitiation to the redeemed, is what’s necessary for right standing before God. Man’s adherence to our civil laws, even if aligned with God’s law is insufficient.

Civil law is limited in scope. The civil magistrates cannot judge matters of the heart. They can only judge acts of aggression. Where an act of aggression has not taken place, even if the heart contemplated it, the state has no proper jurisdiction before God.

“Isn’t the most important concern criminalizing abortion?”

The predominant view of the pro-life cause has always been to criminalize immediately. Even incrementalists would prefer it. Many believe, that if we just pass a law this alone will save millions of unborn babies. This view is naive at best. The decades long war on drugs demonstrates the problem with using legislation to stop an unwanted human behavior.

Obviously the drug war is disanalagous from abortion in that abortion involves a victim. However, the facts remain: the war on drugs, enacted to stop drug use and shut down cartels, failed miserably. A war on abortion, enacted with the same end goal, to stop abortion and shut down abortion cartels, would fail too. The war on drugs has not only failed, but taken down millions of innocent people with it. This should a warning to us that a war on abortion would result in failure and injustice.

“Are you saying that abortion should remain legal?”

No. Abortion should not remain legal. However, merely passing laws for their own sake are not solutions. The state is capable of acts of aggression against the people (an injustice) and when such aggression is perpetrated, the people ultimately have no recourse. So in considering how to criminalize abortion, we must take into the overall system of enforcement.

Even the context of Romans 13 is in light of Romans 12. Romans 12:21 exhorts us, “do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” There’s no reason why this shouldn’t apply to the context which God-ordained civil governance operates. Romans 13 itself does not describe the state, thus baptizing every action it takes – even evil actions – as if God is playing 4-D chess with us. Romans 13 is prescriptive, in that it calls good civil governance to restrain evil. We must ask, is our system of government actually and effectively restraining evil? No only does our criminal justice system NOT produce deterrence, nor reduce recidivism, but it is a perpetually growing expense on the tax payer, and ignore the victim. Add to this, that the monopoly state does not restrain evil in its own ranks. The system of governance we have in America is no aligned with Romans 13, and therefore arguably not ordained by God.

So we must revisit the question of justice, and what is a just response to abortion?

subscribe by email

Sign up for email updates and other news from Kerry Baldwin and receive Do Christians Own Themselves? absolutely FREE!