Generally, tribalism in human culture routes humans of discernible predilections onto one of two accepted, mainstream camps. This happens through some mix of honest categorization and arbitrary association. For most people, there is no other option. There must be an "us" and there must be a "them".
The idea that another person may not belong to "us" or "them" simply does not compute. Some people will even expunge information that conflicts with their worldview. But lately, a new paradigm has begun to gain traction: libertarianism vs authoritarianism. The authoritarians are those that believe in the old dichotomy. The libertarians believe that the human experience is so unique that no one should be forced into a 3x5 box.
So again, one of the most divisive issues of the age; regardless of your political persuasion:
These differing beliefs are often the cause of conflict, and politics passions often exacerbate the conflict to the point of threats and violence. The issue with these various beliefs, aside from the conflict, is that the politically inclined tend to impose top-down mandates depending upon who is in power. In our modern political climate, extremes dictate public dialog, and the Overton window shifts. To compensate for this, the issue is periodically reframed to suit the political expediency of politicians.
Republicans and the Democrats have dominated this debate for decades, since the days of Roe v. Wade. Each wants to impose a top-down mandate. Libertarians though, recognize that life is infinitely complex, and that individuals and circumstances are unique. Mixtures of individuals and circumstance may or may not produce the same results, therefore a mandate is both arbitrary and authoritarian.
Granted, in the past libertarians have mirrored the larger debate, arguing between pro-choice and pro-life. I want to offer better way, one I believe to be consistent with our first principle: non-aggression. One applicable not just to this debate, but to any debate. If we shift our stance to 'prefer life', then we remain consistent with first principles, while also respecting the circumstances of other individuals. As with any other issue, we devote ourselves to preferring to preserve life, by all possible means, up to the point where another life is threatened.
Logistically, a Prefer-life position needs a bit of work. Abortion has been subsidized to the point that it is many times less expensive than pro-life options. The overall opacity of our medical system, the disregard for the Hippocratic Oath, and the current snarl of legal variance are obstacles as well. Technologically, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Prefer-life embraces multiple options, and additional options will become available in the future:
As I said, individuals are unique, and their circumstances may coincide; but always life presents new combinations. For nearly any condition, medical or not, these options may be viable. Whether reluctance, illness, rape, incest; if the fetal life can be preserved through some means, the option to do so should be available and affordable.
In the rare instance when the pregnancy does present a medical threat to the life of the mother, abortion of the fetus might be employed. But, one hopes that to be an ever shrinking occurrence.
