[carenot]

No, but you are granted the right of choice in the fetus' stead. The freedom to choose, that's all that is involved. Any other arguement involves using someone else's morals to make YOUR decision, and that violates the 1st tenet

OK, you are free to choose death instead of life in the fetus' stead,(fetus=baby).

I saw a cartoon drawing of a freckled, pigtailed girl, with a big belly.

There was an arrow pointing to the girl, saying,"The power of the Federal Government is for you." Another arrow pointed at the girl's big belly. That arrow said,"This kid's on his own!"

[thusevertotyrants]

No child, born or unborn, should not be on their own, but should be under the care of parents. However, some parents do not act responsibly. Traditional government thought then says that to protect such children, the government has a role in order to "prmotoe the general welfare" But wait just a second: why should someone else's irresponsibility force YOU or ME to give up our rights and freedoms as parents and individuals?

What we are realizing here is that a libertarian philosophy requires the intellgience and maturity to act responsibly without laws or government forcing us to do so. I am not blind, I realize well that many people are hardly up to this task. So ............

I do not profess to have all the answers. I do not say that there ought be lawlessness such that irresponsibility goes unpunished. I say only that the solution must NEVER involve violating the individual liberties of the innocent