Yeah like, I'm not against abortion up until a certain time because of reasons relating to personhood. But there's a perfectly valid libertarian argument AGAINST abortion. Ultimately I agree with Gary Johnson that abortion should be legal, but I don't consider his approach to the issue libertarian at all. Rand Paul is more libertarian than Johnson on abortion to me, and not because of WHAT he thinks, but because of WHY he thinks what he does. Likewise, my position on abortion is libertarian as well, even if my conclusion differs from Paul's.
I don't think Gary Johnson is even really thinking about it in moral terms. I think he's just thinking "its a controversial issue, so I'm going to be on the side of less government involvement." That's an instinct that normally works, but in this case its not really workable. Its not just because he's wrong, its that he isn't even thinking about it. Even the most diehard ancaps (which Gary Johnson is not) would oppose a law saying that it is now legal to kill Jews. I see the issue of killing the unborn as very similar.
Even as diehard anti-government control as I am, abortion is an issue I have a hard time really compromising on because of what I said above. Even still, I recognize that:
1. Its very hard to actually enforce anti-abortion laws.
2. The Federal government has no constitutional authority, barring a constitutional amendment, to interfere with the issue.
3. Republicans by and large are not really serious about personhood. This includes Rand Paul. To be honest, it probably includes Ron Paul to, to a certain extent. Until I hear someone saying that Scott Roeder should be released from prison because his actions were actually not murder but vigilante justice, I will consider that person to some extent a compromiser (ie. inconsistent) on the abortion issue.
4. I still prefer inconsistent pro-life candidates over blatantly pro-choice ones, in a vaccuum. Its an important issue to me, not "just another social issue that divides us."
5. Considering how blatantly awful the mainstream candidates are, it is possible that I could vote for a pro-choice candidate, but only if his position was at least as good as the other candidate and he was way better on other issues to make up for it.
6. Blockean evictionism is the one vaguely pro-choice argument that I actually understand and can at least consider to be a valid libertarian argument, even though I think its logically highly problematic. But, I don't really see how a libertarian could deny personhood to unborn children any more than they can to Jews, black people, etc. I can just imagine a "libertarian" in the 19th century saying "yeah, we support equal rights to all persons but blacks aren't people so we can enslave them." It really does sound the same to me, so its problematic and iffy.
7. I understand I am in the severe minority on this matter.
