[thoughtomator]

Fair enough.

[1] Libertarianism and abortion are incompatible at the most fundamental level.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy in which liberty should be maximized; history shows that human beings are happiest and most propserous when they are free. This much I think we will agree. Liberty is the freedom to act in any manner one sees fit that does not infringe upon the equal liberty of others.

The life cycle of a human being begins at conception - this is biological fact and not open to interpretation. Human beings are created by no other process.

Of natural, inalienable rights, the highest is the right to life; without life, no other right can exist. Other inalienable rights support the right to life, such as the right to self-defense. If you have no right to live, then the right to self-defense cannot be asserted, as it would be nonsensical in such a context.

[2]- The first of all rights you must respect, if you wish to emerge from a Hobbesian state of war, is the right to life.

I've largely answered this in the previous paragraphs. To elaborate I will discuss the significance of the Hobbesian state of war.

Hobbes' state of war is that of complete anarchy; it is the natural state of a human being in the absence of any social compact. In this state of war, all recourse to violence is equally legitimate; since there is no law, there is no injunction against violence. It is undesirable to be in this state because in it, life is "nasty, brutish, and short". The first, and necessary step, for human beings to emerge from this state of war is for each human being to relinquish his recourse to violence against others, in exchange for others to relinquish their recourse to violence against him. This is the right to life - the right not to be murdered by another human being, and it is the basis of every free system of government.

[3]- Notice that these rights are endowed by the Creator, not the government.

One need not have any religious preference to support this statement. The relevance of this statement to secular government is to place inalienable rights outside the realm of government, as they must be if the men ruled by that government are free and not slaves. One need not believe in a Creator to see the wisdom of inalienable rights existing regardless of government, since even a non-religious view of inalienable rights derives them from the natural essence and constitution of the human being.


[4]- Once a life is created, no self-respecting libertarian can countenance its termination, pre or post birth.


Thus, having established the inalienable nature of the right to life, as a necessary precondition of the emergence of the Hobbesian state of war; and also having shown through irrefutable biological science that life begins at conception; knowing that a life conceived is unique, as evidenced by its unique DNA; it therefore follows that the right to life exists at the moment of conception.

Noting that inalienable rights do not compel any other human to act, but rather compel him to refrain from acting in a way that infringes upon the rights of others, I continue, that the right to life compels others not to perform any act intended to end a human life other than in the context of a Hobbesian state of war.

Thus, if there is to be any respect for the right to life, it is therefore necessary to compel individuals to respect that right, and thus, abortion, which is explicitly intended to end another human life, cannot be countenanced by any free people.


Such is the libertarian case against abortion; if to be libertarian is in fact to respect the liberty of others.

[tpaine]

Thus, having established the inalienable nature of the right to life,

Not at issue.

as a necessary precondition of the emergence of the Hobbesian state of war;

Libertarians are not anarchists.

and also having shown through irrefutable biological science that life begins at conception;

'Bio life' does not trump the rights of the mother.. See post #10

knowing that a life conceived is unique, as evidenced by its unique DNA;

Not at issue.

it therefore follows that the right to life exists at the moment of conception.

Not so. The legal consequenses of such a theory would be ludicrous. -- In effect, all fertile females from conception to viablity could be charged with murder for aborting..

Noting that inalienable rights do not compel any other human to act, but rather compel him to refrain from acting in a way that infringes upon the rights of others,

You are begging the question that the mothers non-viable baby has inalienable rights, separate from its mother. They cannot be separated. Thus, the mothers rights are inalienable.

I continue, that the right to life compels others not to perform any act intended to end a human life other than in the context of a Hobbesian state of war.

Defense of your own life and body is not anarchy, -- "a Hobbesian state of war".

Thus, if there is to be any respect for the right to life, it is therefore necessary to compel individuals to respect that right,

Hobson's choice. A dilemma.. How to "compel" liberty? I choose the womans freedom over a states compulsory 'laws'.. In fact, I contend the state has been given no power to compel in this issue.
Before viablity, abortion is not a criminal act.

and thus, abortion, which is explicitly intended to end another human life, cannot be countenanced by any free people.

Free people cannot countenace governmental powers that intrude upon an individuals life & liberty to this extent. The enforcement of such prohibitory laws violate our basic constitutional principles.

Such is the libertarian case against abortion; if to be libertarian is in fact to respect the liberty of others.

I find your case more authoritarian than libertarian.