Well, actually, I’m not sure there is just one (libertarians come in many varieties). But this oped by my old friend Martin Masse explains it about as well as can be.
Libertarianism is not, as many conservatives tend to believe, a relativistic philosophy of “anything goes.” It is, on the contrary, a moral philosophy, based on the principle of non-aggression.
Although a person should be free to do what he or she wants with his own body and property, that has to take place in a social setting where everyone else’s individual rights are being protected, which implies a lot of restrictions on what can be done.
When it comes to abortion, first, there is the basic libertarian question of individual rights, including the right not to be “terminated.” When is the fetus an individual and when does he have these rights? The answer to this question is fundamental.
[…]
So where would a libertarian set the threshold? One definition of an individual that can potentially garner the support not only of most libertarians, but of most Canadians, is when the fetus has brain activity and can feel. That’s the same type of debates we are having at the end of life: someone who is brain dead is not considered a living individual anymore and most of us consider it morally acceptable then to end life support.
[…]
Second, there is the question of personal responsibility and the government paying for this.
Feminist propaganda tells us that it’s a hard choice for all women going through this experience, and that we should make it as easy as possible for them. But I find it hard to believe that in Quebec for example, 30% of pregnancies (down from 40% in 2002, but up from 5% in 1975) have to end up in abortions.
Why do so many women resort to this procedure, and even use it repeatedly, as if it were a benign form of birth control? Like all other activities that are being subsidized, people tend to find that it’s acceptable to overuse it, no matter the moral aspects involved.
[…]
As a libertarian, I would certainly want to put a lot more emphasis on personal responsibility (a basic libertarian principle) in the way we deal with this issue. The end result is that we would likely have a lot fewer abortions, and a much better balance between the competing rights of the unwilling mother and those of the unborn individual who depends on her to survive.
by 
I would certainly recommend caution to anyone seeking to use brain activity as a threshold for abortion.
Firstly, because “brain death” is not a scientific definition of death, but rather a protocol that historically was developed in order to facilitate organ harvesting for transplantation before the tissue has time to degrade to the point that it can’t be used in another patient. I’ve heard doctors call into question how “brain death” is determined, as well as express concern that the protocol is turning into a slippery slope that is relaxing the criteria to declare people dead.
Secondly, pre-activity is a different condition than loss of activity. Think of it this way: a person’s heart may stop beating, but doctors don’t declare him dead until they’ve tried to resuscitate him and failed (barring a DNR). If they knew the heart was going to start beating again, there’s no way they’d declare him dead just because it was stopped at the moment. The same would be true for brain death if the brain was capable of resuming function after it stops. The key factor is an inability to function again, not the fact that function has stopped. A developing baby’s heart is NOT no longer capable of sustaining life, NOR is his brain no longer capable of functioning. If the baby is left to follow his natural course, the heart will begin beating and the brain will begin transmitting action potentials. The state of nonfunction before these organs begin to function is not incompatible with life. In fact, it is a NORMAL part of LIFE that every single person goes through! Therefore, the cessation of brain function and pre-function are not equivalent.
If we are going to consider using the commencement of brain function as a threshold for abortion, we must be honest about what we are considering. The reason brain function (and not heart function or kidney function or what have you) is often mentioned as a threshold is because many people define a human being not by their totality as a whole human organism, but by the functional capacity of their brain. Just like the heretics (from the Christian perspective) of yester-millennium who thought only the soul mattered and the body was garbage, many people today see only the brain (and a fully functional one at that) as the definition of a person and the body as inconsequential. Therefore, you start to hear people talking about not when life begins (an actual settled science), but when a person “deserves rights”. And this is another slippery slope that affects not just the unborn, but also the disabled and the elderly.
I agree with you, Darlene, but I think you’re using the slippery slope argument in the wrong direction.
The reality of the matter is that the unborn have no rights in Canada. So rather than say that if we view brain function as the beginning of unborn right to life, then the human rights of those born persons who have limited brain function will be in question, I think we need to work on getting some fetuses recognized as persons, and then extend the question the other way–why the limit? What makes a 7week, six day embryo so substantially different from an 8 week embryo?
The fact is, I think we would be much better off with some legal guidelines on abortion, that may advance in one direction or another depending on the prevailing attitude of the day, than the current legal vacuum, where there is no regulation of abortion at all, and it is seen as a good solution to a problem pregnancy.
Sorry, I meant 8 week fetus.
Libertarians for Life (http://libertariansforlife.org/) has a great library of articles offering a very compelling libertarian argument against abortion.