I think the point is that, just like the economy, a group of well informed, rational beings making decisions that are optimal for them, leads to an optimal solution for society as a whole. I don't think this has anything to do with civil rights movements. It's the people who don't hire talented individuals because of exogenous factors like race and gender that suffer most from it... why not let them suffer?
Oh sure, Libertarians are always rational in their decision making... <img src=http://sairyx.org/~celtic/roflmao.jpg>
Uh, do you want the liberty to pull a baby half way out of the womb, stick it in the head with a knife and kill it, and then throw it in the trash can.
To Leftists, the assassination of a fetus is quite kosher. However riding a motorcycle without a helmet, driving a car equipped with 4 airbags but without wearing a seatbelt, smoking a butt in a bar, keeping a handgun for protection in your glove box, not renting a spare room to a leather clad homo, or not shilling over half your paycheck in taxes are all no-no's! So a "woman has a right to choose" whether she wants to off her baby but how DARE someone not 'CHOOSE" to buckle up.
I wasn't talking about Libertarians, I was talking about the populous and illustrating the fact that libertarianism requires transparency (to some extent) to the populous.
Why did you address this to me, you should ask libertarians why their party is officially pro-choice.
... good one. I intentionally don't wear a seat-belt BECAUSE I'm required to. and the fact that on two seperate occasions the lives of people I know where saved because they were thrown from the car ... funny, "How can you say you stand for personal liberty, when you want to deny a woman the right to choose?!" ... Perhaps we are taking the side of the infant?! Although, I'm not sure whether or not death is a better alternative to being raised by a woman willing to vacuum out her baby and blend it up