Making it more difficult for one person to deprive another person of their right to live is not a libertarian value?
government interference in personal affairs is not a libertarian value.
Making it more difficult for one person to deprive another person of their right to live is not a libertarian value?
This is not my argument but here's some of their reasoning
A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb
Listening to that argument one would think conception is a spontaneous event completely absent any action by the mother.
"Furthermore, in line with the non-aggression principle, the non-aggression principle says that you have to pay for damages that you cause. If you break a window you have to pay to replace that window in a libertarian world, and in the same way since you brought the child into dependence to you you have to provide child care. You are not obligated to provide child care to other peoples children, because you did not bring them into dependence to you, but to the child you conceived.
As long as you're not for an outright ban, then we're on the same page. Consenting adults and all that.
I like him but I'm not fooled by him either.
Making it more difficult for one person to deprive another person of their right to live is not a libertarian value?
Enter your email address to join: