Julie Browoski says that libertarians can still be pro-life because it comes down to a singular question: is there a victim?
Let me posit a scenario.
It’s the dead of winter. You’re awoken by a noise and discover it’s coming from your garage. You decide to investigate. When you open the door leading to your garage, the outer door is closed, and standing next to it is someone who you presume is homeless. The person pleads with you to let them stay, saying they’ll move on in the morning and are only looking for sanctuary for the night.
What do you do?
A few things to bear in mind. First, you’re under no obligation to let them stay. After all, that person broke into your home. Under basic libertarian principles, you have every right to turn them away. And anything that happens to that person after you’ve turned them away is not your responsibility. You have the option to call the police to have that person removed from your property.
And you have the option to let the person stay the night, to provide sanctuary.
Sure most will likely do the latter. Probably even go a step or two further and get blankets, possibly tea or soup for additional comfort. And that is entirely your choice. You have no obligation to do so. But the pro-life argument implies such an obligation exists. And the activists want to force that obligation on everyone.
The trouble with saying that a person can be pro-life and libertarian, or that the anti-abortion position is libertarian, is it violates the fundamental right of a property owner. And if we don’t own our bodies, what do we really own?
A woman who is unexpectedly pregnant is the same as the above homeowner with the unexpected guest. If the homeowner cannot be legitimately obligated to provide sanctuary to anyone who comes calling, a woman cannot be legitimately obligated to continue a pregnancy she does not want.