I happen to be a libertarian, and I stand firm in support of the right of unborn children to live. I came to this conclusion by recognizing that at some point in the womb, the growing child becomes a human being. I am technologically unable to determine precisely when this occurrs. Is it after the first cell division? No, I don't think so. Is it after the first month? Maybe.
I just don't know.
So being unable to determine precisely when this occurrs, and knowing that it varies from preganancy to pregnancy... I must err on the side of caution and adopt a pro-life position.
Nearly half of all libertarians are pro-life. Those who I've spoken with who are not, disagree not on the principle (protection of life).... but on the facts... (whether or not the developing child becomes a human life, or more precisely when)
As a libertarian, I can understand the debate over facts, even as I maintain my own opinion regarding them. I could not understand an argument over the principle.
Its members seem more like libertines than Libertarians!
i appreciate your honesty. being pro-life, i am not arguing with you because the minutia would have no impact on your stance. however, i did want to correct a statement that others who are reading this thread might (and then again might not) appreciate:
life begins at conception. source = bible.