A libertarian acquaintance of mine and I share a number of views in common; we are both for smaller and less intrusive government, as well as the right to pursue happiness in ways of our own choosing.
Where my libertarian acquaintance and I part ways is the question of abortion, and a woman’s so-called right to choose whether or not to maintain the developing life inside her womb. Although this acquaintance is personally pro-life, she appears to think that it is not necessarily the role of government to dictate whether a woman must carry a baby to term.
I wrote,
“I can get behind much of what you believe in.
Except for the abortion part.
You see, my right to do what I want with my fist ends with your face.
And the right of what a person can do with his or her body ends when that person’s choice interferes with another innocent person’s God-given right to live, no matter what station in life or life stage one finds oneself. (read it in the preamble to the Constitution)
The woman’s so-called right to “choose” is not a question of freedom. It goes much deeper than that. It’s a question of one’s fundamental right to exist. When that is called into question, the right to “freedom” is moot.”
Yes, one has a right to engage in the behavior that may or may not produce a life. But one does not have a right nor necessarily the freedom to escape dealing with the consequences of one’s choices, especially when that choice impinges on another’s primary and fundamental right of existence.
Blogs For Victory 