The so-called "libertarian conservative" pro-life argument is that the life or death of the unborn child trumps the personal liberty of the mother, correct?
It therefore stands to reason that if I hold the patent on a medication that will save thousands who can not afford it, the government is also within its rights to seize that medication because the lives it will save outweigh my own personal liberty. Most libertarian conservatives I know would agree with the first scenario and reject the second. Do you see the inconsistency here? In your fantasy world issues can be boiled down to predetermined outcomes that always favor "The Big 'L'." In the real world, things are usually not that simple. So, again, that's why most of us on this website grew out of libertarianism at some point in our early 20's.
An honest libertarian is pro-abortion. Period.
“OK, I’ll play along for one hand and give you a hypothetical:
The so-called “libertarian conservative” pro-life argument is that the life or death of the unborn child trumps the personal liberty of the mother, correct?”
Not exactly, the libertarian Conservative position is that the child is entitled to the same right to life as the mother. That abortion is nothing more than murder, and should not be treated differently.
This is not to say that the child could not die on its own, or die separably if transplanted ect...
“It therefore stands to reason that if I hold the patent on a medication that will save thousands who can not afford it, the government is also within its rights to seize that medication because the lives it will save outweigh my own personal liberty.”
No, once again there is a very big difference between “saving a live” and taking a life. The difference is the theory of non-interference (or nonexistence).
If you didn’t exist(or interfere) you would nether save nor take any lives. Therefore the people who would die for-lack of YOUR saving would still die, just as the people who would die because of your actions would live.
In just law(true libertarian theory) you can at best be made responsible only for the results of YOUR own actions NOT your inaction.
Therefore your rights to act end only when those ACTIONS become injurious to others and then only according to law. You of course have compete athority to not act because that would be as if you never existed to act in the first place.
You are an addition to this world & population not a servant to the same, nor are they servants to you. Your acts must by nature be willful, and your inaction’s presumed rights.
To explain how this applies to a mother, she did not get pregnant by lack of action but instead by action. If that act was against her will(say she was raped) then the question becomes that of the right of the baby and the technical, financial, & situation feasibility of transferring said baby to someone willing. If that is not feasible for whatever reason then the pregnancy should be treated like an injury in liability.(Be it one that takes 9 months to recover from but at least its not permanent like a lost limb)
No. If the pregnancy is killing the mother, then she can choose to either terminate the pregnancy or give up her life to allow her child a chance to live. A friend of ours with breast cancer is taking that chance right now. Delaying her chemo and radiation therapy to a point where he child will survive, but she might not.
And no, your red herring doesn't work either. The government would never have the authority to seize anything from you. No matter the "benefit" to others. Period. End of story.
I'm more of a libertarian than I am a bigger government, open borders, "reach across the aisle", compromise on principles republican. And I'm pro-life.
Question is, why aren't you?