See the bold? Of course you have to accept it. The wording itself (your own wording) should make it very clear that it's not up to you to accept or decide what a woman does with her body. A Libertarian should certainly respect a person's sovereignty over their own body. As for the unborn....they clearly have no rights....there is no way to accord them any rights that would not grossly infringe on a woman's inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So of course, it's up to her alone.
As for the second part, that's just silly. Rape and murder clearly infringe on the 3 inalienable rights I just listed. That statement is just like saying, "I have no argument!"
Yes, people do have different opinions on the SCOTUS decision that examined and denied personhood and rights to the unborn. I respect people that would CHOOSE not to have abortions. It's when they would demand, believing they have the right to do so, that others take the risks of pregnancy and childbirth against their will that I object to.
Choice seems like a reasonable position for Libertarians. Obviously from the posts in this thread, not everyone agrees.
The unborn do not have legal rights (in this country), but that does not mean that they don't deserve rights or life. It's a philosophical question, not a legal one. Legality can change with the movement of a pen. There is nothing special about being pushed through a vagina that suddenly kickstarts life. The child is obviously alive at some point before delivery day, and when that point is is up for debate. Most Americans (and libertarians) do not support 3rd trimester elective abortions. Your attitude seems to be that there should be no restrictions for any reason because her right to delay her decision as long as she wants is obviously more important than a human being's right to life. Anyone who disagrees with you? => NOT LIBERTARIAN
"If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself." ~ Martin Heidegger
Generally and currently, the law says 'being born.' According rights to the unborn would enable the govt to grossly infringe on the born's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So then Libertarians, like anyone else, need to examine how they value the unborn and the born. In practice, they cannot be treated equally.
The term person is a legal construct and has already been altered since the countries founding. You aren't going to get anywhere with libertarians bringing it up.It is human, but that is not a person and only persons have rights.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
And philosophically it comes down this: which do you value you more? The unborn or the born?
Because in practice you cannot afford both equal rights and then treat each equally. For the unborn to be entitled to the right to life and a potential future, you would be demanding the woman's rights to the same are secondary. SHe becomes (once again) a 2nd class citizen in society.
And of course the born baby has more 'voice' once born. It immediately makes demands on society...crying, demanding to be fed, demanding attention.
THe born can individually act on society and be acted on by society. The unborn cannot.