Pro Abortion and Pro Immigration are the only positions that are consistent with Liberty. Any Libertartarian who opposes either is living with contradictions.
Compromising is evil because a compromise between good and bad means letting the latter win. The reasons Libertarianism fails to attract followers is a very deep issue that should not be discussed here.
The issue with abortion has to do with those who cannot consent. The issue with immigration is that, even though it is a liberty in itself, it will ultimately and inevitably lead to liberties being lost. (That is a different topic though) Libertarians can rightly argue that they are for liberty and still be against both of those. As they say, there is no liberty without the most fundamental liberty of all: LIFE. Here's another link related to this topic https://fee.org/articles/liberty-is-meaningless-without-responsibility/amp
Think of it in the economic sphere - Tariffs do not completely ban freedom of trade, but a tariff on only one good inevitably wrecks the entire economy.
And that is precisely why they are not be seen has human beings - They lack volitional consciousness. This is not true. USA became the freest and richest coumtry in the world while having the highest influx of immigrants in the world. But, yes... It is a separate issue. Not very consistently. Libertarianism is an incomplete philosophy.
You do realize that (born) babies cannot consent either? I would compare the pre-born human being as analogous to a person in a coma, who is not expected to regain consciousness until several months later. At least in some ways. It is to be questioned whether the consciousness of a fetus is really that different from a newly born baby (or even toddler) though.
This is getting a little off-topic, but you might see Hellen Keller's writings on what her inner existence was like before she was taught to read braille. She claims she "remembers" existing in a state of virtual non-consciousness. I think we can all agree that Hellen Keller, who had never been able to hear or see anything up to that point, was a person. But she lacked volitional consciousness, as you put it.
Infants are physically independent beings with the capacity to freely interact with their surroundings, they can start learning and begin to use their mind and reason. Although they are indeed in a very primitivve state of consciousness, they are nonetheless conscious. Mommy can clean the house while the baby sleeps in daddy's arms. The baby can grip your finger if you put it in their palm. They can look you in your eyes and they can scream when they want attention. Fetuses cannot do any of those things. All infants will eventually fully develop this capacity. Unless you lock them in a closet or something.
And even she learned to fully interact with her surroundings. She could put her hand under running water and learn "aha, this is water" or touch a dog and abstract that "oh, this is furr." She could not do any of that in the womb though. She was conscious from the moment of birth.
Again, like I said, Hellen Keller lacked the capacity to interact with her surroundings, since she could not hear or see, up to the point she was taught to communicate. Should it have been okay to "abort" Hellen Keller before she learned to read braille?
She claims in her writings she had no conscious choice. How do you know the fetus doesn't feel the wall of the womb, or feel the vibrations of its mother's heartbeat?
She did have her other sense organs intact though and she did have a fully intact capacity to reason. No infant can communicate at birth. You cannot abort that which is born.
She did though. Free will is a metaphysical given. Until it has not been proven to be the case, I have no reason to believe otherwise. Even if it was proven it would not change the fact that (a) it is part of the woman's body and (b) it is a potential human being.
And we could communicate only after being taught to speak. We were still conscious though; we knew who mommy was, we learned what a hug, a kiss, laughter and pain was. We learned what water was and what a toy was, all before we could talk. In the womb, we knew nada.
Why do you think free will "is a given", but not with fetuses? Your argument is not a particularly good one and seems to be circular.
They've taught a gorilla to communicate in sign language. If, hypothetically, they taught a fetus to communicate through some sort of simple language of sensory touch in the womb, analogous to braille, would that satisfy your requirement for reason and consciousness?
Even if fetuses had free will, they would not be able to exercise it... Which kind of means they don't have it.
I feel we are making great progress here. You now seem to accept that abortion is, at least, OK in the first day of pregnancy.
I just looked it up, interestingly (and not without a little bit of irony), Hellen Keller supported euthenizing newly born infants who had disabilities. I think it's a fair bet she would have supported abortion... although maybe not necessarily as much when it was a healthy normal baby. Too bad we cannot go back in time and ask her what her opinion was on that.
