Let it be clear to one and all. I fail to see the liberty in the exercise of powers and abilities to extinguish life itself. More worthwhile is the discussion of notions such as that the exercise of powers over life and death resembles more of fascism than the study and execution of liberty.
Not that taking a human life is necessarily fascistic.
I'm not the first and foremost man, in fact I am the most reluctant, to condemn mere hypocrisy. However it would seem to me that the most crushing and damning counterintuitive stance of your average pro-abortion activist, is that while their anti-life stance uses the words hinting and outright implying liberty, that is "Freedom of Choice", the result of an abortion is one less person to make a choice. Rush Limbaugh once stated on the air "Life comes before liberty. Without life there is no liberty." If taking a life unconditionally on the basis of personal whim removes possibility of liberty through the deprivation of life we, that is I, find that the preservation of innocent life at the natal and/or fetal level to be absolutely vital to maintain liberty.
Which is, of course, what draws the line between an absolutely Libertarian stance on abortion. To preserve life we grant liberty, but Libertarian thought usually doesn't make it that far in today's politics. To remove regulation is best, yet damn the loss of life that regulation would prevent. I think some would enjoy some level of regulation. I thought the old-tyme Constitution-era speech involved "liberty or death" (emphasis mine). A Conservative embraces that life exists first to make that choice. There's hardly any liberty in putting the death before life.
This entry is sort of obligatory yet there lies truth. The other truth is that there are the Progressives who would act simply because they suddenly can. The ability itself creates the right to utilize the ability. Is that how a particular freedom is born?