Flawed Libertarian logic

A libertarian posts at Michael Badnarik’s blog:

Something Vox doesn’t necessarily point out is that while Mr. Badnarik is *personally* pro-life, he recognizes that there is significant controversy surrounding when “life” begins (at conception? at birth? at some point in between?), so the state can not legislate against abortion, since a fetus is not unarguably a “human life”.

Who doesn’t recognize that “there is significant controversy when ‘life’ begins”. I mean, if it could be proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that life began at 3 days, 18 minutes after conception, I wouldn’t have any problem with abortions performed before then. But that’s not the case, and is unlikely to ever be the case.

This libertarian’s sloppy thinking has it exactly backward. The states not only CAN legislate against abortion, they MUST legislate against abortion since a “fetus”, or unborn child, is ARGUABLY a human life. The Libertarian Party’s platform is simply outdated on this issue, reflecting the reasonable but inappropriate application of its anti-government intervention philosophy made around the time of the party’s founding in 1971.

One reason I appreciate Michael Badnarik is that he has reached his pro-life position through the genuine application of libertarian logic. This promises well for his leadership, not of the country, most likely, but of helping the Libertarian Party find its way to the proper libertarian position on abortion as well as leading the party to a position of greater intellectual influence in the nation.

In any case, even with its outdated pro-choice platform, the Libertarian Party is committed to returning the issue to the States, where it belongs, and will end federal funding for the abominable practice, which is more than the supposedly pro-life Republicans have done.