As someone who agrees with the underlying Libertarian philosophy I think they got most of it right with a few exceptions. Abortion is one such issue. Where they view it as government intruding in private lives, I view it strictly as one of civil liberties. My particular twist on it is that the liberties being trampled are that of the unborn child and as such should be prohibited.
The big issue IMO that keeping Republicans and Libertarians from coming to a meeting of the minds is the drug issue. On this one I side with the Lib’s. While I can see the need to protect society at large from the proven social effects of certain drugs, I think Marijuana should be a personal choice.
And I think that those are the "sticking issues" for many people -- but I also think that they are the issues that have rational arguments on both sides.
For example, I agree with your position on abortion for the same reasons. But the question is what can be done about it? Some think it is purely an overturning of Rowe vs Wade and federally outlawing abortion -- nice idea but nearly impossible a task. However, if you return abortion to the State level, you might succeed in outlawing abortions in some States, reducing the number of children who are killed. Eventually, other States might follow.
And yet, having said all of that, ultimately it is still "a personal decision" because if a woman is truly determined to get rid of her baby, there isn't much one can do to stop it. The best you can do is to reduce the numbers, not eliminate it altogether -- unless you have a complete cultural shift in this country as to how the origins of the issue is dealt with.
Re the drugs issue, I have equal and opposite arguments in my head as well.
Argument #1 against the War on Drugs: Even with huge amounts of money and the goodwill of the majority of the population, the War on Drugs hasn't worked. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons so how are we going to keep it away from the general population in a free society? The price of the War on Drugs, both in increasing federal powers and in money, has been too high for too little return.
Argument #2 against the War on Drugs. I have no more right to tell you what you can or can't put into your body than I have to tell you that you must eat vegetables for lunch instead of red meat. It's your home, your body, you deal with consequences of what you do. Not my problem.
Argument #3 against the War on Drugs: It's a corrupt rip-off. It's "protection money" to protect you from yourself.
Argument #4 against the War on Drugs: "Houston, we have a problem". We have so many people in jail for non-violent drug offenses that our prisons are overflowing and we are forced to release violent criminals out on to the street to keep the non-violent drug offenders in. In terms of priorities, it's a really bad trade off. And when the non-violent drug offenders are finally returned to the street, do you think that they have "learned their lesson"? More likely, we have just turned what started out as a non-violent offender into a violent and completely unproductive member of society.
Argument #1 FOR the War on Drugs: I don't do drugs, so I don't want to live in a society where everyone is "high" and looking for their next "fix", nor do I want to have to pay for people who are non-productive because they are high all the time. Problem is -- I already do, even with a War on Drugs.
I agree and for me, its a no compromise issue. If a woman wants the right to determine what happens to her body then she also has the right and responsibility of preventing the pregnancy in the first place. She has the right to choose which form of about 12 different types of birth control she wants to use. She doesn't have the right to murder an unborn baby.
Yes, there are a few instances and they ARE few, where rape, incest and the life of the mother are the issuse and these can be taken into account. The idea is that abortions should be extremely rare. jmo