One aspect of libertarian thought which is viewed with great confusion by those outside the movement has been the diverse range of views and disagreements among libertarians concerning the issue of abortion. 
 Since starting with the same basic principles concerning the nature of rights tends to produce a very uniform evolution of core political beliefs, even in the minds of a diverse group of independent thinkers, it would appear rather confusing why libertarians, starting out with such similar principles and beliefs, would become so fractional when individually confronted with this particular issue. 
 But at it’s heart, the abortion debate is merely a logical extension of the debate concerning property rights. 
 If you agree with the previous assertion that, as far as the subject of law is concerned, a life and a body are at their most basic level nothing more than the private property of the person endowed with them, then the question becomes simply a matter of discerning who’s property rights in this particular circumstance take precedence; more specifically, at what point does a developing child attain bodily property rights which could conflict with the bodily property rights of the mother? 
 Before discussing when and why a developing child attains the status of a legal human, it would be helpful to first answer some popular, yet easily refutable arguments commonly applied to the abortion debate, a major one being that the viability of a child outside of the womb can or should be used as a factor concerning it’s legal status. 
 This argument actually has the outward appearance of a libertarian principle, since, if the child is simply using the mother’s body as a source of sustenance without her permission, it becomes a matter of rights concerning the body of the woman; to wit: the child is misusing her property and therefore denying her her property rights. But when viewed through the lens of laws regarding child neglect, this argument appears farcical on it’s face. Consider: What human baby can survive on it’s own outside of the womb? A newborn child, in the same way as the unborn, cannot survive without the nutrients supplied by the mother, as well as the shelter and insulation from bodily harm which, in the case of the unborn, is provided by the mother’s womb. That the nutrients are now supplied in the form of breast milk or baby food, as opposed to an umbilical blood transfer, is irrelevant. 
 In both situations the source of sustenance is the rightful property of the mother, and yet no sane person would argue that a mother has no obligation to provide for her newborn child simply because the source of provision is her property. That she is compelled by law to supply that property to the child is not a violation of her rights because, by virtue of creating that child, she has entered into a contract of legal guardianship with it to either provide the needed food and shelter, or else make the necessary arrangements to transfer that obligation to another through adoption. 
 Thus the key question again is simply: At what point during a pregnancy does the child legally attain rights which would trump those of the mother? 
 But before addressing the issue of when the child attains this legal status biologically, it would be helpful to first ask: At what point does the mother enter into this contract of guardianship? 
 So called “Pro-choice” advocates would argue that by forcing the mother to carry the pregnancy to term, you are, in effect, forcing her to enter into this contract, and are therefore denying her her bodily rights. From this they derive their ideological moniker of “choice”, choice in this instance meaning choosing whether or not to abort the baby. But, aside from the prospect of rape and underage pregnancy, in which case the mother is either not responsible for the resulting pregnancy, or is below the age required to enter into legal contracts (both of which situations we will address at the end of this section), the argument here is virtually the same as the above argument concerning viability. 
 Every adult woman knows full well where babies come from, and has at her disposal any number of contraceptive devices and non-coital sexual options, even aside from the prospect of simply remaining abstinent. Even if there was an adult woman who did not know how pregnancy occurs, as has been said before, “Ignorance is not an adequate defense.” Approaching it from this perspective then, the concept of “choice” applies now not to the mother’s choice of whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, but to her initial choice (or irresponsible mistake) of becoming pregnant to begin with. 
 The way in which abortion advocates frame the issue of pregnancy, as if it were just some unfortunate circumstance which befalls women without their having any choice or complicity in the matter, like some kind of contagious disease or proverbial “act of God”, is patently ludicrous. For those who would posture themselves as “feminists” or “women’s advocates”, this readiness to treat women like unaccountable children in a situation which is almost entirely their own doing betrays the true nature of what they espouse: Equal rights to all the good stuff, and conversely childlike blamelessness for the negative results of their actions. 
 This is not to excuse men from the unwanted responsibility that results from indiscriminately distributing their genes. But, aside from rape and incest (which account for such a small number of annual abortions, only a few fractions of a percent, as to be mostly irrelevant to the debate) the double standard applied to women’s responsibility is remarkable. So, as a result, the father has to pay child support regardless of whether or not he wanted the child carried to term, and yet the mother can make the “choice” to indiscriminately “terminate” (their word) her developing child at any point she so chooses. Is this equal justice under the law? 
 Another formulation popular among those who support legal abortion is the constant repetition of the words “my body.” Thus we are made to suffer numerous fanciful descriptions of how the Republicans want to “control women’s bodies” and how we must “keep the government out of women’s wombs.” People who make such assertions seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that we are dealing with TWO DISTINCT BODIES. It’s not the body of the mother we are concerned with, it’s the body of the baby, unless of course that’s what they’re referring to when they say “my body”, in which case that’s just creepy. 
 No sane person would ever argue that a baby outside of the womb is the “property” of it’s mother, or that she is immune from prosecution for neglect or infanticide simply because it is “her body.” However, if a supporter of abortion is to be consistent, then this is precisely what they must believe; that children are the property of their parents, no different than a cat or a toaster. 
 Another dishonest thrust of the “my body” argument is that, until it comes out, the baby is simply an extension of the mother, like an extra limb or a superfluous lobe; but this idea is quickly refuted by science. A baby has completely separate DNA from that of the mother; a baby’s blood is also usually of a different type than the mother’s. That is what the placenta is for; to strain the nutrients out of the mother’s blood and place them into the baby’s blood. If at any point the blood of the mother mixes with the blood of the child, this will usually result in a miscarriage. 
 But, however scientifically flimsy it’s basis may be it must be conceded that there is a limited logical basis for certain assertions of the “my body” defense. If you are of the opinion that a child before a certain point is simply an “unviable tissue mass” (which, for some odd reason, is in the shape of a baby), then it is at least moderately logical to argue that this nonhuman tissue mass (which is shaped like a baby) is the property of the mother; although, to be consistent, you would also have to attribute half of it’s ownership to the father. However, there is no way to apply this to the case of late-term or partial-birth abortion, since there have been numerous cases of babies born as much as FOUR MONTHS pre-mature surviving outside of the womb. 
 One such child, Kenya King, was born June 6th, 1985 weighing only one pound two ounces, and not much bigger in size than an adult’s open hand. She was only 21 weeks into development, and yet was eventually able to leave the hospital with her mother as a healthy (though admittedly small) baby girl. One would have to be a truly unfeeling monster to argue that this child was not a real person, or that she should have no right to life if at some point in the future her parents decide that she is an “inconvenience.” 
 It is also important to note that the supposed “age of viability” is constantly changing. Forty years ago the general consensus was that a child could survive outside the womb at approximately 30 weeks of development. Twenty years ago it was twenty-five weeks, and yet today most doctors agree that the age of viability is somewhere around twenty weeks. This arbitrary age limit tells us absolutely nothing about the baby; it is only useful as a measure of the current level of medical technology. All this talk of “viability” is a cynical means of avoiding the obvious: That any baby, at any age, if left unattended is, by definition, “unviable.” 
 The survivability of extremely premature babies is enough to completely destroy any support one might lend to the idea of late-term or partial-birth abortions, even if that survival is extremely short lived, since, of course, the survival of many full-term children is extremely short lived due to medical disorders and diseases. Only an extremely callous person would argue that these disabled full-term children don’t have a right to live simply because they are “unviable.” In fact, there is (or was) a political philosophy which tries to argue exactly that; it’s called Nazism. 
 The fact that a distinction is even made between disabled full-term children and “unviable” early-term children is itself highly suspect; isn’t not being able to survive outside the sterile environment of the womb a “disability”? 
 As a matter of fact, it is. There are numerous examples of children with immune disorders who are forced to live inside sterilized plastic “bubbles”, and since there is no real meaningful difference between the mother-provided nutrition that these children receive inside their artificial wombs and the nutrition that an unborn baby would receive inside a real womb, it’s hard to discern any real logical distinction between these two types of “unviable” children other than the perceived level of “convenience” in terminating one, but not the other (who would make a lot of awful noises;). 
 The issue of premature children presents a disturbing “catch 22” for those who would argue the notion of “viability” as it relates to a woman’s bodily rights while simultaneously supporting late-term and partial-birth abortions. Oddly enough, this is the position taken by most public advocates of abortion, no matter how inescapably paradoxical that position may be. 
 The key element to all of these points is this: If it is biologically demonstrable that a developing child in the womb is a living human being, even if only after some set period of time, then that child is legally entitled to the rights of their own life and body and, not only that, but those bodily property rights will logically trump the bodily rights of the woman who is carrying them since, if the child were outside the womb, anything less than provision would be considered neglect. So, let’s take the next logical step and ask “Is the legal humanity of an unborn child biologically demonstrable?” 
 This is where most people, libertarians in particular, differ on the subject of abortion. Up until this point there has been a huge disagreement on what exactly should be the biological test for the humanity of the child. In all of this disagreement, few have thought to ask the most logical question, “When is an adult considered to be a living human being?” 
 Given that there is already a very definite legal standard for the humanity, and therefore the entitlement to rights, of humans outside the womb, it would seem to be a simple matter of applying this standard to humans inside the womb, and yet this is almost never considered. 
 So, what is the legal standard of life outside the womb? It is simply this: A human being is legally considered to be alive when they have both A) a heartbeat, and B) measurable brain activity. 
 What is meant by “measurable brain activity” is “any measurable electrical discharge in the brain.” If a human being is still functioning physically, and yet has no electrical activity in the brain, they are considered “brain dead.” This is where most organs for transplant come from, from people who’s brains are no longer viable but who’s hearts are still beating and who’s lungs are kept moving by life support machines until the family can decide whether or not to “pull the plug.” 
 Although there are documented cases of people being declared brain dead and yet later regaining consciousness, these are very rare, and it is unclear whether the diagnoses were even correct to begin with as it is thought that once the brain shuts down in this manner it is impossible for it be turned back on. 
 It is also important to note that once someone is declared “dead” in this manner, that their body is then technically the property of their next of kin. Although it is not stated in precisely these terms, this is certainly what the law would imply, since the next of kin then decide whether or not to “pull the plug” and also whether to harvest the organs, as well as what funeral arrangements to make. 
 The only reason that the brain dead person’s expressed wishes concerning these matters are even considered after they are declared brain dead is because these wishes, when expressed in written form, are seen as a contract binding on the next of kin not to assert their property rights. 
 Now, whether or not you agree with the law in this respect is not the point. It is crucial to note, however, that any disagreement with this legal principal is always founded on the basis that it is too lax a definition of life. 
 It is almost impossible to conceive of someone opposing this definition of life because they think that people who’s brains do have activity should be considered dead. Opposition to it always falls on the other side; that since, in the past, people have been declared brain dead and have then gone on to regain brain activity, then maybe it is possible to recover from this condition, or that this standard is too open to abuse by unethical doctors who are looking for organs to transplant. 
 This distinction is crucially important, because if one at least believes that this definition of life is adequate, which I would wager almost all supporters of abortion do, then it is logically impossible to support any abortion which takes place after an unborn child has attained these two characteristics: A) a heartbeat, and B) brainwaves. 
 So, since we have finally established a viable legal definition of what makes a human being alive, and therefore entitled to property rights, let us apply this standard to unborn children. 
 When do unborn children attain both a heartbeat and brainwaves?  FOUR TO SIX WEEKS! At approximately six weeks into development an unborn child has a heartbeat and measurable brain activity. 
 The most that abortion advocates can muster in defense of their position is to argue that these brainwaves are “not adequate to attain conscious thought.” 
 Setting aside the questionable nature of that claim (unborn babies have been known to writhe around wildly and register brain activity consistent with feelings of pain during abortion procedures), since when do we measure lividity by someone’s state of consciousness? If someone is hit on the head with a hammer and knocked unconscious, do we start taking bids for their organs right then? Well, they don’t feel any pain, right? People can go into comas for months and awaken with no memory whatsoever of the time that they were unconscious; would anybody argue that they were “dead” that whole time? 
 Lacking consciousness simply means lacking consciousness; it has no baring whatsoever on someone’s legal status of lividity. Brain death, on the other hand, means that there is no more measurable activity in the brain; if the body is disconnected from life support it will die. Understanding all of this, how could anyone possibly support the idea that a little baby with both a heartbeat and a working brain is an “unviable tissue mass?” 
 If, however, you are one of the people who think that the standard is too lax, in that case you could not support any abortion, even if the baby had no brainwaves at all. In fact, this would be the equivalent of the mother “pulling the plug” on behalf of the child. 
 Since this is a purely intellectual exercise, I’ll save my own beliefs as to why an embryo at any stage of development constitutes a human being until the chapter on religion at the end of the book; but even if you do not believe this, you still have to take into account the fact that the vast majority of abortions take place after these two legal standards have been met. Indeed, most women aren’t even aware that they are pregnant until they are more than a few weeks into pregnancy (of course there are pregnancy tests, but women who take those are usually trying to get pregnant, aren’t they?) 
 If, on the other hand, you think that this accepted legal standard of life is too strict, then, logically, you would have to support the indiscriminate killing of anybody, anywhere, for any reason, or at the very least the euthanizing of the temporarily unconscious. Obviously this second position is not very popular. 
 Having established a legal basis for the humanity of the unborn (at least after the first month or so), there is still an important question to ask, “What about rape and incest?” 
 Even many of those who believe in the logic of the pro-life sentiment become incredibly uncomfortable when confronted with this dilemma. Many make the claim that they are pro-life “except in the case of rape or incest”, but this is a sell-out to avoid the real issue. It is natural to want to compromise here, considering the moral implications involved; however, when viewed through the libertarian lens of property rights, it becomes simply a matter of discerning who has the more legitimate legal claim to the mother’s body: the mother or the unborn child? 
 Nobody likes the idea of saddling an innocent girl with the responsibility of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term, even if she plans on giving it up for adoption, but the fact is, there are many situations in life where people are saddled with legitimate legal responsibilities that they did not ask for. The real question to ask is “Do any of them justify the killing of an innocent child?” 
 Suppose for example that you were a Siamese twin, and that your twin brother or sister, for one reason or another, was legally retarded. Under these circumstances, once you were both eighteen years old you would be held legally responsible for the care of your twin. Clearly this is not a responsibility you asked for. 
 Now, suppose there was an operation which could successfully separate you from your twin, but in so doing would absolutely guarantee the death of your sibling. Would any court in the nation affirm your right to separate from your twin, thereby guaranteeing his death? 
 Clearly no rational person would argue that you had the right to kill your retarded twin merely for the convenience of being separated, just as no rational person would argue a mother’s right to murder her newborn child simply for her own convenience; and yet the fact remains: you did not ask for this responsibility. Just because a responsibility is not asked for does not mean that it is not legitimate. 
 Suppose again that there were only three remaining members of your family: your mother, your father and yourself. Suppose your father has just suffered a stroke and is incapable of caring for himself. Then, unexpectedly, your mother dies, leaving you responsible for the care of your invalid father. Would any sane person argue that you have the right to kill or even just abandon your invalid father, simply because you find your newfound responsibility “inconvenient”? 
 Again, you did not ask for this responsibility to be dumped on you, but that’s just the way life is sometimes. At the very least you would be required to make sure that the responsibility was transferred to someone more willing or capable than yourself, as in the case of adoption. 
 Even considering how morally trying it is to expect an innocent young girl to face up to the responsibility of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term, especially considering her own victimization in the matter in the case of rape, there is simply nothing about her unfortunate circumstance which could ever justify the taking of another person’s life. 
 When acting on principle, there will always be certain ramifications resulting from those principles that just don’t “feel” right, but we cannot live our lives, or write our laws, based on how we “feel.” That’s exactly how we got ourselves into such a mess to begin with on the issue of abortion.