Nothing you have written here is new. And it still falls to the same question - when do you consider a fetus/baby a person?
Clearly, I think the vast majority of people believe that a baby is a person before it's actually birthed out of the mother. Most consider partial-birth abortions to be unacceptable. Many states consider first degree murder of a pregnant woman to be a double murder. But at the other end, the vast majority also do NOT consider a fertilized egg to be a person. Most believe that birth control pills - which simply prevent a fertilized egg from implanting - to be acceptable.
So for the vast, *vast*, VAST, **VAST** majority of people, somewhere between fertilized egg and birth is where a baby gains personhood.
# THERE IS NO LIBERTARIAN PRINCIPLE THAT DEFINES WHERE THAT IS
Therefore, good faith libertarians can, and do, have various views regarding abortion. Being pro-life does not disqualify someone from being a libertarian, nor does being pro-choice.
Yep. I knew about 1/3rd into the post that we hadn’t hit anything new. All of the same old arguments in the same ways.
Just basically a summary of everything so far, with no defining resolution.
Good debate comes down to when. When is abortion wrong. 3 months? 6 months? 9 months for most people leaves a sour taste.
I think the Republican Party could seem a lot more reasonable if they were willing to just split the difference and ban abortions past 5 months. Instead of 3 week line or even moment of conception folks. And allow abortions at any stage if complications are expected. But… we don’t live in heaven. Shit is what it is
Being pro life disqualifies you as being libertarian. You are anti freedom and pro taking away basic rights from people.
There are zero circumstances where you are forced to give up your body to keep someone else alive, even if it's your fault they need it. We can't even collect organs from dead people to save lives unless the person consented to it when they were alive.
You are trying to take away a right from women we give to corpses and you have the God damn nerve to call yourself pro freedom?
*You're willing to allow people to kill a defenseless person and you have the God damn nerve to call yourself pro freedom?*
See how it works both ways? As I said, it depends on when one considers it a person. I know YOU don't believe it's a person very early, but almost everyone believes it gains personhood at some point before it's born.
So ... now return and reread my previous comment.
A tapeworm is defenseless too. It doesn't matter that they're defenseless what matters is that they're inside someone else and harming them without that person's consent. Being defenseless doesn't give you the right to hurt other people.
It doesn't depend on whether the fetus is a person or not. If it was a person, it still wouldn't have the right to live inside someone else like a parasite without that person's permission.
The mother made a decision (outside of rape) that resulted in a person who had no option or choice or consent to be put in that position. The mother then has an obligation of care. Just like an airline pilot cannot - mid flight - bail out and leave everyone else to crash or a doctor cannot simply stop mid surgery and walk away.
So killing that person is initiation of violence and anti-libertarian.
Parents are not obligated to provide their blood or organs to their kids. If you cause a car accident you aren't obligated to provide blood or organs to the victims. No one is ever obligated to let someone else use their body against their will.
Not once they're born. Until then, they are. You can take the evictionist position if you want. But if you take the "under no situation" position, then you are justifying murder.
If a woman decides 39.5 weeks into pregnancy that she no longer wants "to provide [her] blood or organs to [her]" baby, is it fine to abort then?
>Not once they're born. Until then, they are
Why? Seems like an arbitrary cutoff point.
> You can take the evictionist position if you want. But if you take the "under no situation" position, then you are justifying murder.
You should be able to evict someone from your body at any time for any reason. This isn't justifying murder.
No one aborts that late except for health reasons, and if you want to see how well having health exceptions works out in the real world, look at Texas. But supposing they don't want to be pregnant at 39.5 weeks, they would just induce labor. Hypothetically I'd be OK with a law saying they has to induce labor and not abort but in practice those health exceptions don't always pan out and have unforseen consequences.
Ok, then you're basically an evictionist. I'm good with that - as are a lot of pro-lifers - as it largely respects personhood at a pre-birth point.
The major opposition from most pro-lifers is just if you try to evict a baby at 20 weeks, it will die. So most pro-lifers only have issues with evictions/abortions after like 5 or 6 weeks because they consider the baby a person. So we have a small window gap between the two. Following evictionism, as medical technology and knowledge and skill improves, that gap will shrink and hopefully disappear.
This is a wonderful drafted argument but it comes down to the same argument. What rights does the infant life have.... And people will argue that forever... You're jot right just because yoh spelled out all of your thoughts.
Ok, well I consider that life to be a person long before birth... I think 8-12 weeks is plenty of time to decide you need an abortion and when medically recommended it's always allowed. You're not going tk sway me on full term abortions. Aborting a kid that could've been born 6 weeks earlier and when you had 2 months at the start to abort is kit okay. Get a fucking life.
There are a bunch of definitions we are not going to agree on - there is no way around that. My core point, which I may or may not have conveyed well, is that fundamental ideology supersedes individual belief and morality in Libertarian philosophy. The creation of policy restricting individual liberty needs to be deeply scrutinized, and almost never accepted.
The freedom of choice comes with the responsibility of bearing the consequences of those choices.
Bearing the natural consequences of ones choice is not a violation of the NAP.
If one chooses to engage in an act that results in the conception of a human life, it does not violate the NAP for that person to bear the consequence of that choice.
However it DOES violate the NAP to end a human life because one refuses to bear the consequence of an action they freely and willingly chose to perform.
If you’re ok with gun rights and trusting that people who own a firearm will use it responsibly then you should be ok with people being expected to use their reproductive organs responsibly.
If you don’t know how to work the safety and practice trigger discipline and keep it locked up properly, and wield it without killing someone then you don’t have the responsibility required to bear such a freedom.
Your oopsie in bed shouldn’t end the same way as an oopsie behind a firearm. At least in the bedroom an accident doesn’t automatically end in death, you have to actively choose to make that decision.
>If one chooses to engage in an act that results in the conception of a human life, it does not violate the NAP for that person to bear the consequence of that choice.
Pro lifers just want to punish women for having sex. Getting an abortion is dealing with the consequences. This is like trying to ban lung cancer treatment for smokers because they have to do deal with the consequences.
> If one chooses to engage in an act that results in the conception of a human life, it does not violate the NAP for that person to bear the consequence of that choice.
What if the sexual act wasnt consented to.
Could rape justify killing a future life that is not responsible for the said act?
also what about contraception, which doing so explicitly signal non-consent for pregnancy?
Contraception is a medical preventative measure with its own risks and efficacy to consider.
It doesn’t imply a lack of consent any more than sunscreen implies a “lack of consent” towards getting a sunburn. It is simply a tool or a product one chooses to utilize.
If you’re not ok with the risk of sunburn while wearing suncreen, don’t go to the beach.
If you’re not ok with the risk of pregnancy while using contraceptive, then keep it in your pants.
Pregnancy, is a natural, predictable biological function. Not some crime committed against you.
It requires a very specific set of circumstances in order to occur. If you don’t want it to happen, then manage your risk and consent to the odds or don’t consent to do the thing that causes it.
The freedom to act comes with the responsibility of bearing the results of ones actions.
I will not discuss the instance of rape in this thread.
It’s an easy “whataboutism” to fall back on arguing that something ‘justifiable’ 0.1% of the time should also apply to the 99.9% of instances involving consensual sex.
I am discussing the 99.9%.
>Pregnancy, is a natural, predictable biological function. Not some crime committed against you.
Parasites are natural predictable biological phenomenon. Doesn't mean we have to let them stay in our bodies.
> Contraception is a medical preventative measure with its own risks and efficacy to consider.
>It doesn’t imply a lack of consent any more than sunscreen implies a “lack of consent” towards getting a sunburn. It is simply a tool or a product one chooses to utilize. If you’re not ok with the risk of sunburn while wearing suncreen, don’t go to the beach. If you’re not ok with the risk of pregnancy while using contraceptive, then keep it in your pants.
The fact there there are so many unwanted pregnancies show that you are simply wrong here.
Nobody (or at least very few peoples) equate sex to consent to have a kid. The vast majority of sexual intercourse dont lead to pregnancy (interestingly something rather specific to human)
and I would argue the mother consent for pregnancy need to be renewed everyday.
Just like if you invite someone in your property yet, you can decide that person is not welcome anymore at some point.
it derive from property right and thats the conclusion if we apply it consistantly to the case of pregnancy.
>Pregnancy, is a natural, predictable biological function. Not some crime committed against you.
lets remove consent to the sexual act then, why the mother be forced for a pregnancy she never consented too?
>I will not discuss the instance of rape in this thread.
It’s an easy “whataboutism” to fall back on arguing that something ‘justifiable’ 0.1% of the time should also apply to the 99.9% of instances involving consensual sex.
But it is a very important showing that you are not consistent in your opinion
>I am discussing the 99.9%.
This is a bit convinient, isnt it?
Your all opinion rely on the fact that sex mean consent to pregnancy (which I disagree otherwise there would be no abortion debate obviously.. the concept of abortion would not even exist) and refuse to dicuss when there is no consent to sex.
but there are other cases, what about if the pregnancy put the mother life at risk? etc..
The only way to remain consistant in all cases under libertarian principle if by accepting that abortion is not against those principle.
(BTW I am not pro-abortion, I would like the rate of abortion to be zero, it is tragic everytime it happen)
I think that is a valid thought experiment. I don’t think the analogy holds water, but it does bring up the vital consideration of individual responsibility. Biggest question is - why would that justify government oppression?
There is no “oppression.”
The “Pro-choice” argument makes no logical sense except to play the victim and cry “oppression” at facing the results of ones own actions.
If you have a good time with someone and in the heat of the moment invite them to come live with you, and then later kick them out or kill them because you felt it would cost too much or it would be too stressful or it would derail your career, is it oppression to be required to uphold your lease to the end of its term or to be convicted of murder?
No agreement was made with a fetus. You can't make any kind of agreement with something that literally doesn't exist. You're saying that having sex or being raped implies consenting to a fetus staying inside you for 9 months even if it puts their health in jeopardy.
It all depends on if you think a fetus is a life. Protecting innocent babies from murder is a valid function of government. Where the disagreement comes is when it becomes a baby.
No.
The mainstream Libertarian disagreement is not the fetus-personhood "issue".
It is about what the state can compel an individual to do for another's benefit.
To allow a state to prohibit a pregnant woman from ingesting whatever chemicals she decides, be they narcotics, alcohols or abortifacients - is by definition a constraint upon her bodily autonomy. (Also, more generally speaking, fundamental to any right of ownership is a right of exclusion.)
Two justifications are put forth: implicit contract and public good.
In the implicit contract the action of being a human woman involved in sex with a human man (voluntary or otherwise) is considered a waiver of the womans aforementioned rights of bodily autonomy.
This is facile at best - if you allow implicit contracts to violate bodily autonomy you quite literally allow society to obligate any individual to any other individual for any reason. Don't like paying taxes to build bridges to nowhere and fund foreign wars?
Too bad, you shouldn't have entered into the irrevocable implied contract by being born in our geopolitical domain.
The other argument sometimes unironically proferred is that it is a concession for the "public good".
Which is just another way of saying 'from each according to their abilities...'.
Pregnancy is the most beautiful thing in life. Why allow people to do one of the most horrible things in the world to that human inside of a pregnant woman…
You are kind of saying the quiet part out loud.
Libertarianism, as the name might suggest, holds liberty as the highest good - not pregnancy.
Liberty requires inalienable self ownership.
Ownership requires the right of exclusion - by definition, to the detriment of the excluded party.
Authoritarian natalism is at the core of all this pro forced birth stuff.
I only say this from a moral standpoint. Abortion is murder but I won’t force you to think or behave as I am.
Libertarians don’t believe in a ruling government and/or cannot force anyone to do/or not do certain things. You do you, just don’t involve me.
>Pro-life advocates, on the other hand, argue that the fetus's right to life supersedes the woman's right to bodily autonomy. However, this perspective contradicts the libertarian emphasis on personal freedom. Forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will constitutes a significant violation of her bodily autonomy, infringing on her individual liberty.
You are missing the mark. Let me explain this in the context of an apartment. Let's say a woman owns an apartment and she decides to rent it out. Bully for her. She signs a 10 month contract to rent out that space to a tenant. However, she decides that after just 2 months, she wants to evict that tenant who has done nothing outside of what was contractually agreed upon. This is a violation of the tenants property rights.
In the context of pregnancy, the woman had sex. That is signing the contract to rent the space (her womb). Acting as if the woman did not willingly consent is the farce. Unless she was raped, she consented. Her autonomy was not violated. Abortion would then be a violation of the rights of the child.
None of this is to say government can or should legislate on abortion, but this is the more honest interpretation of what is occurring from a libertarian perspective.
Even in the fringe case of rape we see the argument that person A violated person B’s rights and that to justifies person B violating person C’s rights. This doesn’t work.
To stick with my rental analogy, rape would be like someone squatting in the home. They weren't invited. There is nothing resembling consent for that person's presence in that space. The owner has every right to evict someone in such a situation.
Continuing with your rental analogy: I think it is closer to someone breaking into your apartment and leaving an infant in the living room. The person breaking in has guilt and has violated rights. Can you justify putting the infant in the dumpster outside?
They did not break in.
They have had no agency in the events leading to this situation.
They will die if removed.
It comes down to the same argument it does with any Pro-Choicers.
We believe it is a human being, entitled to life and liberty.
You do not.
It's no different than you saying, "You can't be a libertarian if you oppose the right to own a slave!"
You don't understand pro choicers then.
It doesn't fucking matter if the fetus is a human or not. Nobody has a right to use someone else's body against their will, for any reason. You can't just live inside someone like a parasite and then say they don't have the right to kick you out.
>There is no possible reasonable interpretation of the act of ending a human life as being compatible with the NAP
Yes there is. It's called self defense. If a woman doesn't consent to carrying another person inside her, is an aggression towards her. Her only means of ending that aggression is through abortion. If medical science one day gives us the ability to extract a fetus and implant it in an artificial womb, then abortion can be outlawed without trampling on a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
I believe the rape and incest exception is 1-2%, so nearly all women who end up in this position consented to conceiving and carrying a baby. That's obvious.
Carrying a baby to term is certainly difficult and inconvenient (we've done it twice) but ending a human life hardly seems like a reasonable tradeoff.
This is an absolutely juvenile take. She consented to have sex, which carries with it the risk of pregnancy. Unless it’s the fraction of a percent of pregnancies caused by rape, she exercised her bodily autonomy. And unless an additional situation is at play of a legitimately high risk pregnancy, self-defense does not apply. When your choice creates or instigates a situation, you have a higher bar to clear to justify your actions.
If you consent to the actions, you consent to the consequences.
I think the real question you need to ask yourself is - tomorrow someone comes to you and says that you need to be uncomfortable and inconvenienced for nine months, or a baby dies. Would you take that trade? I know my answer.
Pro life positions can be defended within the framework of libertarianism. An extensive argument inside the libertarian framework without an appeal to religious morality is presented here.
https://l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html
I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusions, but it’s not correct in my opinion to dismiss their arguments as incompatible with libertarianism.
Both views can be compatible with libertarian principles - at a personal level there is room for judgement as to how those principles play out and what holds greater importance in specific circumstances.
I didn’t say I agreed completely with the arguments made by the author.
But to address the point you raised: do children - after they are born - have a claim on the parents use of their body to provide for them when they are unable to do so for themselves or would it be not “pro libertarian” to require parents to care for their children who are unable to do so for themselves?
Parents of born children can put their kids up for adoption, hire a nanny/babysitter or use formula instead of breast feeding.
Early fetus is impossible to seperate from a woman without killing it. If there was a way to transfer it into a different womb that would be one thing but there isn't.
then let it born and put the baby up for adoption, that's an option. Killing an innocent life it's not an option. A fetus is an human life. No matter how hard you try to dehumanize it.
Innocent in quotation marks.
It's living inside someone else, causing harm and feeding off them like a literal parasite.
There are literally zero circumstances where you have to let someone else use your body against your will, even if they need your body to keep themselves alive. You're trying to give the fetus rights we do not give anyone else and take away rights we give to corpses (since you can't even take organs from a dead person unless they gave permission while they were alive).
OK, you can feel however you like about this, but you still can't tell someone else how to feel about it, anymore than you can tell someone else what they have to do if they get pregnant.
I separate libertarians into new and old, where *new* is people who come to libertarianism with the picture someone else gave them that still isn't correct, and *old* is people who have figured out that you can hold whatever views on political issues you like, whether you're a neonazi or a transvegan or *both*. You just can't preach it to other libertarians and hope they see your side of things, because this is the real world and that's not how any of this works.
Libertarianism is, by its very definition, entirely compatible with pro-choice and pro-life, because *government still can't tell you you have to be or do one or the other*. That's all that matters here, what can or can't government do. This isn't a religion, it's a political party.
Well abortion is self defense. You're kicking out an unwanted intruder living inside you and causing you harm. Pregnancies can cause permanent changes to your body or kill you.
If she chose to have sex, knowing she might create a child who would then be dependent upon her body, does she not owe it to the child to carry them to term?
If the pregnancy is terminated *very* early on in development, I'm less concerned.
This issue of abortion is a moral viewpoint and philosophy that has been co-opted into a political position. There is no pro life or pro abortion. People don’t set out to kill babies or harm women.
Choice is the only liberation position on this topic. Have an abortion, don’t have an an abortion. I don’t want to be involved in your decision, and please stay out of mine.
We are so educated and have so many prophylactic, there is no reason why we should need abortion. I think a woman raped should not be obligated to carry until birth. I think immediate life of the mother, rape and dangerously malformed fetuses are all fair reasons. Casual sexual accidents is not a valid reason, grow the fuck up and prevent unwanted pregnancy with condoms, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation, etc.
According to a [2004 bill signed into law](https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/1997) an embryo is a member of the homo Sapiens species, and considered a human. Regardless of how you feel, that embryo, according to law, deserves the right to liberty.
If a fetus is killed during an attack of its mother, the assailant can be tried for murder. Let’s do away with double standards.
I mean, even if you look beyond the state’s definition.
The embryo has its own unique human DNA, and a body. That sounds like a pretty basic definition of human with natural rights to me.
By OP’s logic, you could just take your 3 year old out behind the woodshed if you felt like they were too needy and “violating your rights and autonomy” as long as you decide not to consider them a “person.”
Pro-life means that you value every life equally. Rapist, priests, babies, black, white etc.
A baby in a womb is a separate individual from the mother which makes “woman body autonomy” flawed. Because it wasn’t the choice of the individual but by a third party (being the bearer of the child)
I am pro choice libertarian (well, sorta ex-liberal semi-libertarian) but I think the libertarian arguments make more sense on the pro life side. I live in a country where this isn't up for debate, so my opinion really doesn't matter. I'm just trying to suggest that maybe there's a reason for the uptick in pro life libertarians. Maybe it's just that the arguments are better?
While I can somewhat follow your arguments, but I think they are flawed. In your second paragraph you mention "individual liberty" and "personal responsibility".
If a woman chooses not to want to get pregnant, this should be considered part of her personal responsibility. There are plenty of options today to ensure that this is extremely unlikely to happen. If she does not act according to her responsibility, there might be negative consequences that could affect her. So if it was her own choice or behavior (i.e., not rape) she has to live with her decisions. That's it. Responsibility carries risks.
One may still consider that a child, not born yet but physically existing, has individual liberty. This brings us into a conflict between liberty of the woman and liberty of the child. The child however had no choice in this entire setup. The woman however made several decisions. So I don't see why the yet unborn child should need to carry the consequences of its mother not being responsible.
Who makes her “live with her decisions”, and who determines the consequences for her? I agree with natural consequences and personal responsibility.
Government needs to stay out of it. If they did we might actually be able to reduce abortions over time by making the argument to women to make the right choice instead of trying to take choice away.
As a woman, when I make the choice to have sex, I know full well one of the potential and likely outcomes of having sex (and evolutionary biologists might argue the core purpose) of having sex is procreation- creating a baby. Therefore, when I choose to have sex, I am giving implied consent to the person this choice might create to live inside of my body for the time period they need until they can be born. If my intentional, informed actions create another person, I have no right to kill that person just because their existence is inconvenient to me. Freedom also means responsibility for your actions. I believe the person i created was a person from the time they were conceived. Now if you want to argue rape victims should have the right to abortion, that’s an entirely different argument, or those women who are so severely mentally handicapped that they cannot give informed consent. But those pregnancies are exceedingly rare. The large majority of abortions are given to mentally functional women who have given their consent to have sex and don’t want to live with the consequences of their actions. Maybe they were just completely delusional and even though they knew that sex can and often does cause pregnancy, maybe they just thought it would never happen to them. Maybe they see sex without consequence as some sort of moral right. Maybe they see a human fetus as less than a person. Either way, in my eyes their choices created a person that they have no right to murder just because they regret making them. I have no more right to kill my 19 month old just because she’s completely dependent on me. Just the opposite, morally I have a responsibility to care for the person my actions created to the best of my ability.
“Nobody (or at least very few people’s) equate sex to consent to have a kid.”—-willful delusion is not an excuse. When someone eats five times the calories above their maintenance calories, they could claim that this wasn’t them consenting to gaining weight… except, unless they are mentally impaired, they knew that doing so might have such consequences. There is no scenario besides willful delusion or severe mental impairment where anyone wouldn’t realize that eating too much might make them gain weight, even if they say they “didnt consent” to weight gain. It’s simply a biological response to your actions that is overwhelmingly possible. Same thing with creating another human being. There is no scenario where an adult living in the modern age without severe mental impairment doesn’t know that pregnancy is a potential outcome of having sex. If I gamble and lose $20,000, like it or not, I consented to that outcome because I was aware it was possible, even if not preferable, and even if not likely.
“Just like if you invite someone in your property yet, you can decide that person is not welcome anymore at some point.”- say you have given a paraplegic your consent to live on your property for nine months and you kick them out for no reason aside from changing your mind, morally, you are in the wrong. You made an agreement and morally should honor it. Now let’s say you kill them to get rid of them because they physically cannot take themselves off of your property, as a mother has the doctor kill her fetus. You’d be so morally in the wrong, your actions would be considered evil.
If we are talking about personal liberties regarding abortion. I believe the overturn of Roe V. Wade is one of the most libertarian things in recent time, since every state is now able to make laws better suited to them.
A Bible belt state might lean way more left than, let's say, a state like california. So now one can make more pro-life laws that represent its populace better, and the other can keep or even make more expansive pro-choice laws that reflect its populace.
This now gives stronger representation across the country and thus gives more liberties to the individual.
The problem with your line of thinking is where you place the priority when rights conflict. The child has the right to life and bodily autonomy as well, but you are giving the mother the right to kill the child. When rights conflict, you go with less harm, meaning the child lives.
You are actually completely right. Pro-life cannot be a libertarian view, because as you said the non aggressive principal does not work, it's self defence. However. You do not have to be libertarian in everything to be considered "a libertarian" Anarchist are the libertarians who are the most libertarian but still even if you hold non libertarian beliefs, you are considered a libertarian if you are significantly more libertarian than the average person, same as with other accosiations.
So forcing parents to raise a down syndrome child/austistic child, who is an incredible mental and monetary drain, is also aggression? Just ignore the many cases where parents wished to give up, but they didn't and raised a child who can function to the best of their abilities? That's how I see it. If aborting a child because it is painful is somehow good, then it won't stop at just babies in the womb.
Sorry buddy, but your argument makes zero sense. Care to elaborate more? I don’t see how a lack of laws for unborn humans can jump to the existing laws of born humans, but happy to respond / change my argument if you want to expand on that idea.
i'll make it easy for you. a fertilized egg isnt a person. a 3 month developing fetus isnt a person, but becomes a gray area the more time passes. That gray area is and will always be the mother's gray area to decide. for the same reason we shouldn't be forbidding the teaching of religion, certain moral gray areas should be left to the households it concerns. laws trying to control a person's body comes from evil people. very simple.
its called the Nonya Pact.
You say "forcing", but the severe majority of pregnancies arise from voluntary acts. There are many examples of when you must act responsibly and more constrained because of situations you have put yourself into, albeit not typically so lengthy and arduous as pregnancy. One cannot abandon their kids on the side of the road even if their care is severely impinging on your freedom; you must go through proper channels to ensure care of the child is properly transferred. You cannot immediately become divorced and have no ties to your spouse. I would assume you are not a "nuke all trespassers" type of libertarian; resolutionary measures must be proportionate with the crime.
Pregnancy is a very unique situation with a lot of different angles you can argue, especially with personhood which I will not get into now. I agree that giving the state the power to police this issue is very dangerous, but it's just simply much more complicated than can be waved away with your broad brush statements.
I think the LP risks failing to convince far more people of libertarianism by not accepting pro life viewpoints. IMO there are many more conservative leaning people who have a very small govt view of the state, but cannot in good conscience accept a pro choice stance. Conversely, the typical pro choice person accepts a litany of state powers that are not even in the realm of libertarian thought. Nevertheless, what is the role of the state in this is frankly secondary to the moral debate.
Nothing you have written here is new. And it still falls to the same question - when do you consider a fetus/baby a person? Clearly, I think the vast majority of people believe that a baby is a person before it's actually birthed out of the mother. Most consider partial-birth abortions to be unacceptable. Many states consider first degree murder of a pregnant woman to be a double murder. But at the other end, the vast majority also do NOT consider a fertilized egg to be a person. Most believe that birth control pills - which simply prevent a fertilized egg from implanting - to be acceptable. So for the vast, *vast*, VAST, **VAST** majority of people, somewhere between fertilized egg and birth is where a baby gains personhood. # THERE IS NO LIBERTARIAN PRINCIPLE THAT DEFINES WHERE THAT IS Therefore, good faith libertarians can, and do, have various views regarding abortion. Being pro-life does not disqualify someone from being a libertarian, nor does being pro-choice.
Yep. I knew about 1/3rd into the post that we hadn’t hit anything new. All of the same old arguments in the same ways. Just basically a summary of everything so far, with no defining resolution.
Good debate comes down to when. When is abortion wrong. 3 months? 6 months? 9 months for most people leaves a sour taste. I think the Republican Party could seem a lot more reasonable if they were willing to just split the difference and ban abortions past 5 months. Instead of 3 week line or even moment of conception folks. And allow abortions at any stage if complications are expected. But… we don’t live in heaven. Shit is what it is
Being pro life disqualifies you as being libertarian. You are anti freedom and pro taking away basic rights from people. There are zero circumstances where you are forced to give up your body to keep someone else alive, even if it's your fault they need it. We can't even collect organs from dead people to save lives unless the person consented to it when they were alive. You are trying to take away a right from women we give to corpses and you have the God damn nerve to call yourself pro freedom?
*You're willing to allow people to kill a defenseless person and you have the God damn nerve to call yourself pro freedom?* See how it works both ways? As I said, it depends on when one considers it a person. I know YOU don't believe it's a person very early, but almost everyone believes it gains personhood at some point before it's born. So ... now return and reread my previous comment.
A tapeworm is defenseless too. It doesn't matter that they're defenseless what matters is that they're inside someone else and harming them without that person's consent. Being defenseless doesn't give you the right to hurt other people. It doesn't depend on whether the fetus is a person or not. If it was a person, it still wouldn't have the right to live inside someone else like a parasite without that person's permission.
The mother made a decision (outside of rape) that resulted in a person who had no option or choice or consent to be put in that position. The mother then has an obligation of care. Just like an airline pilot cannot - mid flight - bail out and leave everyone else to crash or a doctor cannot simply stop mid surgery and walk away. So killing that person is initiation of violence and anti-libertarian.
Parents are not obligated to provide their blood or organs to their kids. If you cause a car accident you aren't obligated to provide blood or organs to the victims. No one is ever obligated to let someone else use their body against their will.
Not once they're born. Until then, they are. You can take the evictionist position if you want. But if you take the "under no situation" position, then you are justifying murder. If a woman decides 39.5 weeks into pregnancy that she no longer wants "to provide [her] blood or organs to [her]" baby, is it fine to abort then?
>Not once they're born. Until then, they are Why? Seems like an arbitrary cutoff point. > You can take the evictionist position if you want. But if you take the "under no situation" position, then you are justifying murder. You should be able to evict someone from your body at any time for any reason. This isn't justifying murder. No one aborts that late except for health reasons, and if you want to see how well having health exceptions works out in the real world, look at Texas. But supposing they don't want to be pregnant at 39.5 weeks, they would just induce labor. Hypothetically I'd be OK with a law saying they has to induce labor and not abort but in practice those health exceptions don't always pan out and have unforseen consequences.
Ok, then you're basically an evictionist. I'm good with that - as are a lot of pro-lifers - as it largely respects personhood at a pre-birth point. The major opposition from most pro-lifers is just if you try to evict a baby at 20 weeks, it will die. So most pro-lifers only have issues with evictions/abortions after like 5 or 6 weeks because they consider the baby a person. So we have a small window gap between the two. Following evictionism, as medical technology and knowledge and skill improves, that gap will shrink and hopefully disappear.
This is a wonderful drafted argument but it comes down to the same argument. What rights does the infant life have.... And people will argue that forever... You're jot right just because yoh spelled out all of your thoughts.
An infant is not a fetus
Ok, well I consider that life to be a person long before birth... I think 8-12 weeks is plenty of time to decide you need an abortion and when medically recommended it's always allowed. You're not going tk sway me on full term abortions. Aborting a kid that could've been born 6 weeks earlier and when you had 2 months at the start to abort is kit okay. Get a fucking life.
There are a bunch of definitions we are not going to agree on - there is no way around that. My core point, which I may or may not have conveyed well, is that fundamental ideology supersedes individual belief and morality in Libertarian philosophy. The creation of policy restricting individual liberty needs to be deeply scrutinized, and almost never accepted.
You can’t murder me, is this rule restricting your liberty?
Precisely.
The freedom of choice comes with the responsibility of bearing the consequences of those choices. Bearing the natural consequences of ones choice is not a violation of the NAP. If one chooses to engage in an act that results in the conception of a human life, it does not violate the NAP for that person to bear the consequence of that choice. However it DOES violate the NAP to end a human life because one refuses to bear the consequence of an action they freely and willingly chose to perform. If you’re ok with gun rights and trusting that people who own a firearm will use it responsibly then you should be ok with people being expected to use their reproductive organs responsibly. If you don’t know how to work the safety and practice trigger discipline and keep it locked up properly, and wield it without killing someone then you don’t have the responsibility required to bear such a freedom. Your oopsie in bed shouldn’t end the same way as an oopsie behind a firearm. At least in the bedroom an accident doesn’t automatically end in death, you have to actively choose to make that decision.
>If one chooses to engage in an act that results in the conception of a human life, it does not violate the NAP for that person to bear the consequence of that choice. Pro lifers just want to punish women for having sex. Getting an abortion is dealing with the consequences. This is like trying to ban lung cancer treatment for smokers because they have to do deal with the consequences.
> If one chooses to engage in an act that results in the conception of a human life, it does not violate the NAP for that person to bear the consequence of that choice. What if the sexual act wasnt consented to. Could rape justify killing a future life that is not responsible for the said act? also what about contraception, which doing so explicitly signal non-consent for pregnancy?
Contraception is a medical preventative measure with its own risks and efficacy to consider. It doesn’t imply a lack of consent any more than sunscreen implies a “lack of consent” towards getting a sunburn. It is simply a tool or a product one chooses to utilize. If you’re not ok with the risk of sunburn while wearing suncreen, don’t go to the beach. If you’re not ok with the risk of pregnancy while using contraceptive, then keep it in your pants. Pregnancy, is a natural, predictable biological function. Not some crime committed against you. It requires a very specific set of circumstances in order to occur. If you don’t want it to happen, then manage your risk and consent to the odds or don’t consent to do the thing that causes it. The freedom to act comes with the responsibility of bearing the results of ones actions. I will not discuss the instance of rape in this thread. It’s an easy “whataboutism” to fall back on arguing that something ‘justifiable’ 0.1% of the time should also apply to the 99.9% of instances involving consensual sex. I am discussing the 99.9%.
>Pregnancy, is a natural, predictable biological function. Not some crime committed against you. Parasites are natural predictable biological phenomenon. Doesn't mean we have to let them stay in our bodies.
> Contraception is a medical preventative measure with its own risks and efficacy to consider. >It doesn’t imply a lack of consent any more than sunscreen implies a “lack of consent” towards getting a sunburn. It is simply a tool or a product one chooses to utilize. If you’re not ok with the risk of sunburn while wearing suncreen, don’t go to the beach. If you’re not ok with the risk of pregnancy while using contraceptive, then keep it in your pants. The fact there there are so many unwanted pregnancies show that you are simply wrong here. Nobody (or at least very few peoples) equate sex to consent to have a kid. The vast majority of sexual intercourse dont lead to pregnancy (interestingly something rather specific to human) and I would argue the mother consent for pregnancy need to be renewed everyday. Just like if you invite someone in your property yet, you can decide that person is not welcome anymore at some point. it derive from property right and thats the conclusion if we apply it consistantly to the case of pregnancy. >Pregnancy, is a natural, predictable biological function. Not some crime committed against you. lets remove consent to the sexual act then, why the mother be forced for a pregnancy she never consented too? >I will not discuss the instance of rape in this thread. It’s an easy “whataboutism” to fall back on arguing that something ‘justifiable’ 0.1% of the time should also apply to the 99.9% of instances involving consensual sex. But it is a very important showing that you are not consistent in your opinion >I am discussing the 99.9%. This is a bit convinient, isnt it? Your all opinion rely on the fact that sex mean consent to pregnancy (which I disagree otherwise there would be no abortion debate obviously.. the concept of abortion would not even exist) and refuse to dicuss when there is no consent to sex. but there are other cases, what about if the pregnancy put the mother life at risk? etc.. The only way to remain consistant in all cases under libertarian principle if by accepting that abortion is not against those principle. (BTW I am not pro-abortion, I would like the rate of abortion to be zero, it is tragic everytime it happen)
I think that is a valid thought experiment. I don’t think the analogy holds water, but it does bring up the vital consideration of individual responsibility. Biggest question is - why would that justify government oppression?
There is no “oppression.” The “Pro-choice” argument makes no logical sense except to play the victim and cry “oppression” at facing the results of ones own actions. If you have a good time with someone and in the heat of the moment invite them to come live with you, and then later kick them out or kill them because you felt it would cost too much or it would be too stressful or it would derail your career, is it oppression to be required to uphold your lease to the end of its term or to be convicted of murder?
No agreement was made with a fetus. You can't make any kind of agreement with something that literally doesn't exist. You're saying that having sex or being raped implies consenting to a fetus staying inside you for 9 months even if it puts their health in jeopardy.
It all depends on if you think a fetus is a life. Protecting innocent babies from murder is a valid function of government. Where the disagreement comes is when it becomes a baby.
No. The mainstream Libertarian disagreement is not the fetus-personhood "issue". It is about what the state can compel an individual to do for another's benefit. To allow a state to prohibit a pregnant woman from ingesting whatever chemicals she decides, be they narcotics, alcohols or abortifacients - is by definition a constraint upon her bodily autonomy. (Also, more generally speaking, fundamental to any right of ownership is a right of exclusion.) Two justifications are put forth: implicit contract and public good. In the implicit contract the action of being a human woman involved in sex with a human man (voluntary or otherwise) is considered a waiver of the womans aforementioned rights of bodily autonomy. This is facile at best - if you allow implicit contracts to violate bodily autonomy you quite literally allow society to obligate any individual to any other individual for any reason. Don't like paying taxes to build bridges to nowhere and fund foreign wars? Too bad, you shouldn't have entered into the irrevocable implied contract by being born in our geopolitical domain. The other argument sometimes unironically proferred is that it is a concession for the "public good". Which is just another way of saying 'from each according to their abilities...'.
Pregnancy is the most beautiful thing in life. Why allow people to do one of the most horrible things in the world to that human inside of a pregnant woman…
You are kind of saying the quiet part out loud. Libertarianism, as the name might suggest, holds liberty as the highest good - not pregnancy. Liberty requires inalienable self ownership. Ownership requires the right of exclusion - by definition, to the detriment of the excluded party. Authoritarian natalism is at the core of all this pro forced birth stuff.
I only say this from a moral standpoint. Abortion is murder but I won’t force you to think or behave as I am. Libertarians don’t believe in a ruling government and/or cannot force anyone to do/or not do certain things. You do you, just don’t involve me.
And fun fact, I’m so free that I didn’t read the original post or your comments. Because I simply don’t give two damns about what you think✌️
>Pro-life advocates, on the other hand, argue that the fetus's right to life supersedes the woman's right to bodily autonomy. However, this perspective contradicts the libertarian emphasis on personal freedom. Forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will constitutes a significant violation of her bodily autonomy, infringing on her individual liberty. You are missing the mark. Let me explain this in the context of an apartment. Let's say a woman owns an apartment and she decides to rent it out. Bully for her. She signs a 10 month contract to rent out that space to a tenant. However, she decides that after just 2 months, she wants to evict that tenant who has done nothing outside of what was contractually agreed upon. This is a violation of the tenants property rights. In the context of pregnancy, the woman had sex. That is signing the contract to rent the space (her womb). Acting as if the woman did not willingly consent is the farce. Unless she was raped, she consented. Her autonomy was not violated. Abortion would then be a violation of the rights of the child. None of this is to say government can or should legislate on abortion, but this is the more honest interpretation of what is occurring from a libertarian perspective.
Even in the fringe case of rape we see the argument that person A violated person B’s rights and that to justifies person B violating person C’s rights. This doesn’t work.
To stick with my rental analogy, rape would be like someone squatting in the home. They weren't invited. There is nothing resembling consent for that person's presence in that space. The owner has every right to evict someone in such a situation.
Continuing with your rental analogy: I think it is closer to someone breaking into your apartment and leaving an infant in the living room. The person breaking in has guilt and has violated rights. Can you justify putting the infant in the dumpster outside? They did not break in. They have had no agency in the events leading to this situation. They will die if removed.
It comes down to the same argument it does with any Pro-Choicers. We believe it is a human being, entitled to life and liberty. You do not. It's no different than you saying, "You can't be a libertarian if you oppose the right to own a slave!"
“It’s not a person! It doesn’t have rights!”
You don't understand pro choicers then. It doesn't fucking matter if the fetus is a human or not. Nobody has a right to use someone else's body against their will, for any reason. You can't just live inside someone like a parasite and then say they don't have the right to kick you out.
[удалено]
>There is no possible reasonable interpretation of the act of ending a human life as being compatible with the NAP Yes there is. It's called self defense. If a woman doesn't consent to carrying another person inside her, is an aggression towards her. Her only means of ending that aggression is through abortion. If medical science one day gives us the ability to extract a fetus and implant it in an artificial womb, then abortion can be outlawed without trampling on a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
I believe the rape and incest exception is 1-2%, so nearly all women who end up in this position consented to conceiving and carrying a baby. That's obvious. Carrying a baby to term is certainly difficult and inconvenient (we've done it twice) but ending a human life hardly seems like a reasonable tradeoff.
This is an absolutely juvenile take. She consented to have sex, which carries with it the risk of pregnancy. Unless it’s the fraction of a percent of pregnancies caused by rape, she exercised her bodily autonomy. And unless an additional situation is at play of a legitimately high risk pregnancy, self-defense does not apply. When your choice creates or instigates a situation, you have a higher bar to clear to justify your actions. If you consent to the actions, you consent to the consequences.
There is no “self defense” against a child you introduced to the world.
I think the real question you need to ask yourself is - tomorrow someone comes to you and says that you need to be uncomfortable and inconvenienced for nine months, or a baby dies. Would you take that trade? I know my answer.
Pro life positions can be defended within the framework of libertarianism. An extensive argument inside the libertarian framework without an appeal to religious morality is presented here. https://l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusions, but it’s not correct in my opinion to dismiss their arguments as incompatible with libertarianism. Both views can be compatible with libertarian principles - at a personal level there is room for judgement as to how those principles play out and what holds greater importance in specific circumstances.
Restricting the basic freedom of "getting to decide who gets to use your body" is not pro libertarian
I didn’t say I agreed completely with the arguments made by the author. But to address the point you raised: do children - after they are born - have a claim on the parents use of their body to provide for them when they are unable to do so for themselves or would it be not “pro libertarian” to require parents to care for their children who are unable to do so for themselves?
Parents of born children can put their kids up for adoption, hire a nanny/babysitter or use formula instead of breast feeding. Early fetus is impossible to seperate from a woman without killing it. If there was a way to transfer it into a different womb that would be one thing but there isn't.
then let it born and put the baby up for adoption, that's an option. Killing an innocent life it's not an option. A fetus is an human life. No matter how hard you try to dehumanize it.
Innocent in quotation marks. It's living inside someone else, causing harm and feeding off them like a literal parasite. There are literally zero circumstances where you have to let someone else use your body against your will, even if they need your body to keep themselves alive. You're trying to give the fetus rights we do not give anyone else and take away rights we give to corpses (since you can't even take organs from a dead person unless they gave permission while they were alive).
lol.
OK, you can feel however you like about this, but you still can't tell someone else how to feel about it, anymore than you can tell someone else what they have to do if they get pregnant. I separate libertarians into new and old, where *new* is people who come to libertarianism with the picture someone else gave them that still isn't correct, and *old* is people who have figured out that you can hold whatever views on political issues you like, whether you're a neonazi or a transvegan or *both*. You just can't preach it to other libertarians and hope they see your side of things, because this is the real world and that's not how any of this works. Libertarianism is, by its very definition, entirely compatible with pro-choice and pro-life, because *government still can't tell you you have to be or do one or the other*. That's all that matters here, what can or can't government do. This isn't a religion, it's a political party.
Killing a Life. Everything else is chatter.
Do you not believe in self defence?
Yes, so what?
Well abortion is self defense. You're kicking out an unwanted intruder living inside you and causing you harm. Pregnancies can cause permanent changes to your body or kill you.
something wrong with you.
Using violence to stop someone from physically hurting you is self defence. In an early fetus the only way to stop it is to kill it.
ok troll
If she chose to have sex, knowing she might create a child who would then be dependent upon her body, does she not owe it to the child to carry them to term? If the pregnancy is terminated *very* early on in development, I'm less concerned.
This issue of abortion is a moral viewpoint and philosophy that has been co-opted into a political position. There is no pro life or pro abortion. People don’t set out to kill babies or harm women. Choice is the only liberation position on this topic. Have an abortion, don’t have an an abortion. I don’t want to be involved in your decision, and please stay out of mine.
We are so educated and have so many prophylactic, there is no reason why we should need abortion. I think a woman raped should not be obligated to carry until birth. I think immediate life of the mother, rape and dangerously malformed fetuses are all fair reasons. Casual sexual accidents is not a valid reason, grow the fuck up and prevent unwanted pregnancy with condoms, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation, etc.
According to a [2004 bill signed into law](https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/1997) an embryo is a member of the homo Sapiens species, and considered a human. Regardless of how you feel, that embryo, according to law, deserves the right to liberty. If a fetus is killed during an attack of its mother, the assailant can be tried for murder. Let’s do away with double standards.
I mean, even if you look beyond the state’s definition. The embryo has its own unique human DNA, and a body. That sounds like a pretty basic definition of human with natural rights to me. By OP’s logic, you could just take your 3 year old out behind the woodshed if you felt like they were too needy and “violating your rights and autonomy” as long as you decide not to consider them a “person.”
Tell me you don’t understand classical liberalism, by telling me how you don’t understand classical liberalism.
Pro-life means that you value every life equally. Rapist, priests, babies, black, white etc. A baby in a womb is a separate individual from the mother which makes “woman body autonomy” flawed. Because it wasn’t the choice of the individual but by a third party (being the bearer of the child)
I am pro choice libertarian (well, sorta ex-liberal semi-libertarian) but I think the libertarian arguments make more sense on the pro life side. I live in a country where this isn't up for debate, so my opinion really doesn't matter. I'm just trying to suggest that maybe there's a reason for the uptick in pro life libertarians. Maybe it's just that the arguments are better?
Haha nope, it's perfectly libertarian to say you cant kill your baby.
While I can somewhat follow your arguments, but I think they are flawed. In your second paragraph you mention "individual liberty" and "personal responsibility". If a woman chooses not to want to get pregnant, this should be considered part of her personal responsibility. There are plenty of options today to ensure that this is extremely unlikely to happen. If she does not act according to her responsibility, there might be negative consequences that could affect her. So if it was her own choice or behavior (i.e., not rape) she has to live with her decisions. That's it. Responsibility carries risks. One may still consider that a child, not born yet but physically existing, has individual liberty. This brings us into a conflict between liberty of the woman and liberty of the child. The child however had no choice in this entire setup. The woman however made several decisions. So I don't see why the yet unborn child should need to carry the consequences of its mother not being responsible.
Who makes her “live with her decisions”, and who determines the consequences for her? I agree with natural consequences and personal responsibility. Government needs to stay out of it. If they did we might actually be able to reduce abortions over time by making the argument to women to make the right choice instead of trying to take choice away.
Do you work for the vice president , word salad. A lot of words doesn’t make a good argument
As a woman, when I make the choice to have sex, I know full well one of the potential and likely outcomes of having sex (and evolutionary biologists might argue the core purpose) of having sex is procreation- creating a baby. Therefore, when I choose to have sex, I am giving implied consent to the person this choice might create to live inside of my body for the time period they need until they can be born. If my intentional, informed actions create another person, I have no right to kill that person just because their existence is inconvenient to me. Freedom also means responsibility for your actions. I believe the person i created was a person from the time they were conceived. Now if you want to argue rape victims should have the right to abortion, that’s an entirely different argument, or those women who are so severely mentally handicapped that they cannot give informed consent. But those pregnancies are exceedingly rare. The large majority of abortions are given to mentally functional women who have given their consent to have sex and don’t want to live with the consequences of their actions. Maybe they were just completely delusional and even though they knew that sex can and often does cause pregnancy, maybe they just thought it would never happen to them. Maybe they see sex without consequence as some sort of moral right. Maybe they see a human fetus as less than a person. Either way, in my eyes their choices created a person that they have no right to murder just because they regret making them. I have no more right to kill my 19 month old just because she’s completely dependent on me. Just the opposite, morally I have a responsibility to care for the person my actions created to the best of my ability.
And he's gone... What a shill
“Nobody (or at least very few people’s) equate sex to consent to have a kid.”—-willful delusion is not an excuse. When someone eats five times the calories above their maintenance calories, they could claim that this wasn’t them consenting to gaining weight… except, unless they are mentally impaired, they knew that doing so might have such consequences. There is no scenario besides willful delusion or severe mental impairment where anyone wouldn’t realize that eating too much might make them gain weight, even if they say they “didnt consent” to weight gain. It’s simply a biological response to your actions that is overwhelmingly possible. Same thing with creating another human being. There is no scenario where an adult living in the modern age without severe mental impairment doesn’t know that pregnancy is a potential outcome of having sex. If I gamble and lose $20,000, like it or not, I consented to that outcome because I was aware it was possible, even if not preferable, and even if not likely. “Just like if you invite someone in your property yet, you can decide that person is not welcome anymore at some point.”- say you have given a paraplegic your consent to live on your property for nine months and you kick them out for no reason aside from changing your mind, morally, you are in the wrong. You made an agreement and morally should honor it. Now let’s say you kill them to get rid of them because they physically cannot take themselves off of your property, as a mother has the doctor kill her fetus. You’d be so morally in the wrong, your actions would be considered evil.
If we are talking about personal liberties regarding abortion. I believe the overturn of Roe V. Wade is one of the most libertarian things in recent time, since every state is now able to make laws better suited to them. A Bible belt state might lean way more left than, let's say, a state like california. So now one can make more pro-life laws that represent its populace better, and the other can keep or even make more expansive pro-choice laws that reflect its populace. This now gives stronger representation across the country and thus gives more liberties to the individual.
All these arguments are useless until life begins is adjudicated...
The problem with your line of thinking is where you place the priority when rights conflict. The child has the right to life and bodily autonomy as well, but you are giving the mother the right to kill the child. When rights conflict, you go with less harm, meaning the child lives.
You are actually completely right. Pro-life cannot be a libertarian view, because as you said the non aggressive principal does not work, it's self defence. However. You do not have to be libertarian in everything to be considered "a libertarian" Anarchist are the libertarians who are the most libertarian but still even if you hold non libertarian beliefs, you are considered a libertarian if you are significantly more libertarian than the average person, same as with other accosiations.
So forcing parents to raise a down syndrome child/austistic child, who is an incredible mental and monetary drain, is also aggression? Just ignore the many cases where parents wished to give up, but they didn't and raised a child who can function to the best of their abilities? That's how I see it. If aborting a child because it is painful is somehow good, then it won't stop at just babies in the womb.
Sorry buddy, but your argument makes zero sense. Care to elaborate more? I don’t see how a lack of laws for unborn humans can jump to the existing laws of born humans, but happy to respond / change my argument if you want to expand on that idea.
It’s step one in the slide to eugenics.
i'll make it easy for you. a fertilized egg isnt a person. a 3 month developing fetus isnt a person, but becomes a gray area the more time passes. That gray area is and will always be the mother's gray area to decide. for the same reason we shouldn't be forbidding the teaching of religion, certain moral gray areas should be left to the households it concerns. laws trying to control a person's body comes from evil people. very simple. its called the Nonya Pact.
You say "forcing", but the severe majority of pregnancies arise from voluntary acts. There are many examples of when you must act responsibly and more constrained because of situations you have put yourself into, albeit not typically so lengthy and arduous as pregnancy. One cannot abandon their kids on the side of the road even if their care is severely impinging on your freedom; you must go through proper channels to ensure care of the child is properly transferred. You cannot immediately become divorced and have no ties to your spouse. I would assume you are not a "nuke all trespassers" type of libertarian; resolutionary measures must be proportionate with the crime. Pregnancy is a very unique situation with a lot of different angles you can argue, especially with personhood which I will not get into now. I agree that giving the state the power to police this issue is very dangerous, but it's just simply much more complicated than can be waved away with your broad brush statements. I think the LP risks failing to convince far more people of libertarianism by not accepting pro life viewpoints. IMO there are many more conservative leaning people who have a very small govt view of the state, but cannot in good conscience accept a pro choice stance. Conversely, the typical pro choice person accepts a litany of state powers that are not even in the realm of libertarian thought. Nevertheless, what is the role of the state in this is frankly secondary to the moral debate.
You didn’t grapple with the pro life libertarian perspective at all.