Comment: I don't see logical consistency here

(See in situ)

I don't see logical consistency here

So I claim to be a libertarian, but much like Tom Woods, am a practicing orthodox Catholic. So, my understanding of a fetus is that it is an individual and just as I'm pro-laws against murder of a 30 year old, I'm pro-laws against allowing for abortion and think people that support abortion are wrong.

That said I don't think they are stupid, and since they think a fetus is not an individual they logically think it an invasion of ones personal rights to put limits on abortion. Thus they disagree rightly disagree with pro-lifers based on their perception of reality.

Neither side says "Great" to the other as you suggest they might, nor should they. Some degree of complete moral ambivalence or relativism would be required for either side to accept the others position. I guess those taking a sort of agnostic position that "we can't know if they are individuals" might be okay with either side but not those with an inclination to one side or the other.

And this only seems the most wrong of the points made here. If I encounter a libertarian who thinks war is great, that martial law is good, that the bill of right is bad or anything else - yeah, I'd set myself apart from their group or affiliation.

Orthodoxy isn't an opposite of liberty, but perhaps it is an opposite of relativism.