To me, being in favor of government crack down on women who perform abortion is almost as bad as the draft. This is something so intimate, something you do with your body. Government intervention in something so personal is simply inexcusable. The fact that many libertarians support such stance is bewildering. You can play some logical games to prove its actually okay, but in the gut level I feel it is extremely anti freedom. What do you think?
For me the question is, do fetuses own themselves?
I think the question is red-herring. It doesn’t matter it owns or not itself, it’s in woman’s body and therefore, can be evicted. Peacefully. 
Peacefully from the fetus’ point of view? Artificial wombs don’t exist yet.
I suppose it would be like kicking out a homeless guy.
The problem being that if you can peacefully evict a fetus, why not a baby or a child? This innocent eviction does away with all of parents’ obligations to their children. Now, this might be a good thing ultimately, but I have not yet come to that conclusion.
I don’t think abortion is ultimate point which determines is one libertarian or not. Anti-heroin minarchists usualy aren’t treated as a statists!
One could consider this a “lifeboat situation”, except that in this case (typically), helping the other person won’t lower one’s own chance of survival. I think a better analogy is pushing someone off of one’s own boat when the other person can’t swim. In that situation, the boat owner intentionally placed the other person in a situation that put his life at substantial (if not severe) risk.
For me the question is this: Is it happening on my land?
Yes? Then, no, you are not going to have an abortion on my land.
No? Then, go ahead and do whatever the hell you want on your own God-foresaken land. You would be wise to be ever vigilant to defend yourself from crazy anti-abortionists who may choose to invade your territory in defense of the unborn.
Haha, nice stance.
Anti-social much?
Anti-social much?
Agreed. Plus, it contradicts your stance on loose property rights. If new people can do whatever on your land, how come old people can’t have abortions?
I proudly call myself an anarchist.
What type?
Wheylous,
You are making a mistake by assuming that property rights must be the same for old people as it is for the unborn.
Are you implicitly claiming that anarchists are anti-social?
Autokylos,
I am smugly dismissing the relevence of your question and the assumptions you make.
Cry me a river. And as far as I’m concerned, you have nothing to be smug about.
Do rights suddenly change? Perhaps there is some deeper issue than property rights then which we should be addressing.
Like the right to Life. Like the sanctity of life. Like how life > property.
Or like the NAP. No baby every trespassed, invaded, or crawled up into a womb. There is NO property rights violation or aggression of ANY stripe from the baby so no violence due it. The reason the baby is in the womb is solely due to the mother’s actions and the subsequent consequences of those actions. Yes, actions do have consequences.
Or like responsibility. The prime responsibility for the baby being in the womb is the mother’s and secondarily the father’s. In one sense, she violated the NAP since that baby was not asked for consent. She should now, along with the father, be responsible for caring that child through to birth. At that point she can continue as mother of the child or since it is now viable outside of her body she can put it up for adoption. (the waiting list for babies in this country is so long that I personally know people that went to Central America and Russia, in spite of the red tape and costs, to adopt babies)
(Ignoring the case of rape which is another matter and insignificant contribution to abortion numbers)
These are all philosophical musings, but in practice, if someone kidnapped and tortured my girlfriend for undergoing a medical procedure, I wouldn’t call that someone a libertarian.