Abortion is one of the most contentious issues that exists in the political sphere. Very few other topics invite the sort of emotion that this one does. So vital is the issue that former Texas governor Ann Richards famously opened her speech at the 1988 Democratic National Convention by saying, "I'm Ann Richards, and I'm pro-choice." Though the economy dominates the discussion at this point, it is unlikely that we have heard the last great debates from pro-life and pro-choice camps.
The arguments that always surface in this debate are a neverending back-and-forth about the contrast of the woman's right to choose versus the taking of a life. The Libertarian Party, and indeed, many other groups focused on civil liberties, see the issue as simply the choice for every woman regarding her body. In this, I actually disagree with the largest and most mainstream body in American libertarianism. The problem, as I can see it, is that we have not reached a point of scientific advancement that tells us definitively where life begins.
At some point in every pregnancy, the life of the fetus begins. No side of the debate will argue otherwise. However, the inconsistency about when that point is leaves a quandary regarding when the body in question is, in fact, not that of the woman herself, but of her unborn child. My point-of-view is that rights and the need for consent attach at the moment life begins, whenever that is.
I err on the side of caution. To me, it is far more egregious to run the risk of violating the fetus's rights (since he or she cannot consent at that point) than to simply grant that a woman may do as she pleases. While parents are afforded the ability to consent for their children (quite rightly), I know no jurisdiction that would allow a claim that a child consents to its own destruction. Therefore, until the matter of when life begins is settled, I think that we should not allow abortions except in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother.
Those three exceptions do present a bit of a problem, though, because the same need for consent and the rights of the child attach here, too. However, since the child was not a product of a consensual act, then the rights of the mother are, indeed, violated by the baby's existence. I applaud any woman in this position who chooses to carry to term, but I think that she should be able to decide, since she couldn't decide about getting pregnant in the first place.