I wouldn't say it is immoral as much as it is irresponsible. Espically with libertarians who hold private property rights in such high esteem, protecting others who may be having those rights infringed should be done if possible, especially when it can be done safely. But I wouldn't suggest any actions against the person who didn't act as it is one's own responsibility to protect one's property ultimately.

As far as abortion, would it be immoral to stop a woman from having one? I think so, yes. Despite whatever your personal views on abortions are, it's my body, my life and no one should be able to tell me what I can do with it. A fetus gets it's oxygen, it's nutrients..everything....by taking it from my body. Now if I want to have a child, I consent to that and that's fine. But what if I was raped, or got pregnant through a broken condom and not only don't want to raise a child, but don't want to go through the tiring and sometimes deadly process of pregnancy? Should I be forced to because you personally find my actions immoral? No. My body is my private property and that gives me the right to decide what to do with it, you trying to stop me is infringing on those rights and I feel at that point I'd be justified in taking some steps via private arbitration to prevent any further infringments on me from that point on. If you want to picket outside the clinic, that's fine too, as long as you don't stop people from being able to come and go.

Just hopping on to check the really thought provoking comments from you all.

Lysander, just to be precise on my look at abortion. It's a matter of definition, not belief. It's an "if-then" statement to me. If one looks at a human embrio at the point of conception as distincly human, and one recognizes that it is alive, both of which are true statements, then the intentional ending of that life is the killing of it. I simply offer the logic chain to those who are inconsistent about what is or is not a human life. I always state it is the taking of a human life, because abortion is that, while it can and cannot be murder depending on the situation.

For example, abortion for self-defense, some people might see that that is killing, but not murder.

Nich's point is very thought provoking, and I see what you mean, Nich, about making my own personal choice based on my own moral position re abortion and re stepping in to save a life.

Personally, I think the two are sometimes distinct, and sometimes the same. Personally, I would feel as if I betrayed my own morals if I did not try to stop a murder. But those circumstances are always different. Depending on the level of danger to myself, perhaps I would choose not to in the spur of the moment. One never knows, but generally speaking, I would try. How does that translate to stopping abortion on a one-to-one level? Well, great question. If I believe that the abortion is not for self-protection of one's own life, is it not analogous to murder? In most cases it is. So what would I do, based on my own morality and not based on that of the society in which I might freely choose to live?

On my own, I would try to stop it. But in every case? And how? Would I talk to the mother? Would I prevent the doctor from acting? Would I hold a gun to a woman and make her carry her baby? How extreme is one willing to go, and where does it become coercion rather than protection?

If faced with such a situation, what information does one need in order to act on his morals? Can one be certain the mother wasn't in a life threatening situation? Can one know if she was raped or she engaged knowingly in sexual relations and created the new life with her own consent?

Saving the life of a person outside the womb is easier to consider, whereas the unknowables are numerous when one looks at abortion.

Tough questions. When I talk about abortion, I merely try to get people square on what a fetus is, which is that it is clearly a distinct human life. No one needs religion to discern those prima face facts. However, what one does to be consistent, that's a fascinating question.

One thing that is worth pointing out is that if someone who is against abortion "acts on his conviction" and keeps a woman from having the abortion, her life is forever and permanently affected. Even if she gives up the child for adoption and doesn't raise it, pregnancy has consequences on the body. That's why 529,000 women a year dies from it. She has been stopped from living her life as she chooses. What right does anyone have to tell a woman, "You HAVE TO go through pregnancy and give birth!" just because that's their morality? Isn't the reason we are libertarian is because we believe that people should be free to live their lives without others imposing a domainant will on everyone? Should I be forced to have a baby because someone else has decided that I have to? Some religions say "You HAVE TO circumcise your sons, because God says so..." They believe it's necessary in order to get into heaven. So they steal your child in the night and circumsise your child. That person has just imposed their will on your life and your family. It's the exact same thing. I don't care what reason a person has for disagreeing with abortion, religous or not, I don't see what it has to do with any woman on her reproductive decisions. Some people think taking birth control pills or using condoms is murder because it prevents pregnancy from happening. There would have been a "life" if you hadn't used condoms or taken those pills. Where do we draw the line?

GG,

I don't mean to chide you about the word believe.  I  think it's just the nature of the English language that we use believe in so many ways.   After all, the LC motto is "We believe in the invisible hand and the broken window". My opposition is abortion, or rather, the reason I believe it is killing is philosophical and scientific,not religious.  If I were an atheist, I would still hold the same position.  As you said, the killing becomes murder when it is not for self-defense.  As a sidenote, Ron Paul has stated that he never witnessed an instance where abortion was needed to save the life of the mother. 

I think the jist of Nich's comments where this.   If an oppoent of abortion knew that a woman was going to have one, would they employ force to stop it? 

I do think the point would be moot in a stateless society.  I could not envision any way for someone to prevent an abortion in such a society. 

Force is a matter of degree Lysander; if you had a scale of action, it would start at peer pressure type of things, such as dirty looks, verbal chastisement, and other forms of ostracism or persuasion then scale into the forced based actions.  Like I said eariler, every situation determines their own degree of action to it, but in the case of a relative having an abortion who you can easily reach, the least you could do is try to talk to her to stop it.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke

Whatever Burke's philisophical piccadillos from the Libertarian viewpoint, this is an excellent summary quote.

The quote and the issue at hand has particular relevence to pre World War II Europe, and its attempts at placating the marauding Evil of Hitler. The whatif question on many issues comes up, but on that I often wonder what would have happened had Europe stopped Hitler earlier. Would millions of lives have been saved?

A lot of these quotes are as it relates to problems such as government tyrrany. But, the example given here was abortion and you have to take into consideration the consequences of meddling into other peoples personal affairs. One of the reason why a lot of libertarians are against the current war is you have to take into consideration the consequences of going into another mans home unwelcome, but people are happy to do it when it suits them to push their morality on people who didn't ask them for their opinion.