Why both honest Libertarianism and honest Feminism are tough propositions

Cara has a difficult post up at The Curvature that deals with a lot of my worst dilemmas as a Libertarian--and, I think, finds her grappling with similar issues as a feminist.

When you believe in freedom of choice, then you also have to believe in the freedom to make bad choices.

The posts discuss a proposed Arizona law allowing the State to detain and involuntarily hospitalize pregnant methamphetamine addicts.

Last week, reader Jessica sent me a link to a story about new legislation being considered in her state that would forcibly imprison pregnant women suspected of being addicted to methamphetamine, sending them to drug treatment facilities against their will. The Arizona bill is, of course, designed to protect fetuses, not women....

Indeed: the state has a specific role to protect people from harm, so long as the person isn’t a pregnant woman being harmed by the government who thinks that pregnancy gives them total control over her body.

The bill would expand the child abuse statutes to include methamphetamine use during pregnancy — essentially, defining child abuse as something a woman does to harm herself, intentionally or unintentionally, while carrying a fetus. It seems that all legislators opposed to the bill are doing so on the basis that it challenges abortion rights, or at least presents a slippery slope for challenges later on down the line....

While I thank Cheuvront for opposing the bill and hope that he and other legislators continue to vocally do so, I think that his reasons are troubling and just plain off the mark. The problem is that, regardless of what Cheuvront actually feels, this kind of argument suggests that if it were possible to pass the legislation without putting abortion rights in any sort of danger, there would not be a problem.

I agree. As much as the issue of abortion rights is important, there's a civil rights issue involved here as well. What gives the government the right to arrest someone (assuming they are not arrested for possession, and that's not the point of the law) for being unhealthy and then not only force them to get treatment, but force them to get treatment of the government's choosing?

The individual in question has not been convicted of any crime (or the new law would be unnecessary).

The plain fact of the matter is that people have the right to abuse their own bodies, but the government doesn't.

(And don't go all "we've got to take care of the unborn" or "so what are you going to do about the poor crack baby when it's born" crap; I adopted a child born with fetal alcohol syndrome. Did you?)

But Cara being Cara, the post has more thought-provoking material in it, including this discussion about the nature of abortion rights in a free society:

Despite all of the anti-abortion wingnuts out there, there are a lot of people who support the rights of Good Women to have Legitimate Abortions. Arguing that the Bad Women who are addicted to drugs have a right to not be forcibly locked up just because they’re pregnant? Well, that’s a little bit trickier.

Or, it’s a bit trickier in terms of convincing those people who think that they’re all liberal-minded and supportive of women’s rights, but only do support women whose behavior they personally approve. You know, there are the Good Abortions — abortions by women who used birth control but got pregnant anyway and simply cannot raise a child due to financial concerns, and really it’s what’s best for the woman and potential child. And there are the Bad Abortions — abortions by women who didn’t use birth control, who have more than one sexual partner, or who can afford to raise a child but simply don’t want to, the ones at whom we can shake our heads and say tsk-tsk while feeling superior, the stupid horrible sluts who we couldn’t possibly relate to, and luckily, whose shoes we therefore never have to wear to walk a single step. Of course, those with this point of view could never possibly have a Bad Abortion themselves. The Bad Abortions are for other women, because otherwise it would defeat the whole purpose, which is to fit some bizarre and arbitrary cultural morality that says abortion is very icky and wrong, that is unless the woman has a very good reason that can pass each individual citizen’s personal legitimacy test.

You see, for many people, supporting the right to an abortion has very little to do with female bodily autonomy at all. It’s about securing a right that they feel they or a close family member may personally need one day. And few people ever anticipate themselves or a loved one having a crippling drug addiction.

You see, here's the difficulty with being a Libertarian with feminist leanings or a Feminist with libertarian leanings: to protect your own rights, you've got to protect those of people you disagree with, or dislike, or disapprove of, of--worst of all--those who will make choices that while legal you find morally reprehensible.

It's sooo much easier to go all squishy and let the State get the poor preggers meth addict off the street and into mandatory treatment for her own good since she's not really a human being in the comfortable sense of the word anyway.