I just stated the exact opposite of that in my last message (and have stated/implied it before as well). The rest of your message seems to hinge on ignoring that, so no need to comment there.
No you didn't say the opposite of what I claimed in your last message. Nor as far as I can tell did you imply it in any previous post. What you said in your last message was:
"Agreed, and it's perfectly reasonable for a libertarian to not criminalize abortion. I also think it's perfectly reasonable for a libertarian to criminalize abortion."
This opening statement only tells us that you agree it may be reasonable for libertarians wish to criminalize abortion or not. So far, what you wrote tells us nothing about the possibility of a logical inconsistency with the "if" part of your question. That is: so far, what you say does not have anything to do with the logical inconsistency I said I think you are trying to demonstrate.
You follow the part I quoted with,
I'm still not clear on whether you agree or not, because you keep dodging that part of the question. "
That is: you complain that ironman dodged part of your question. This strongly suggests that you are very intent
on getting ironman to give a full answer to the full (not partial) question.
And, it's very clear that the whole point of your full
question connecting the "if" clause to the "crimininalization" cause is motivated by your desire to show what you think getting ironman to answer the full question will show a logical inconsistency.
Why do I think this? Not because I ignore your words but because I read, attend and note you told us showing logical inconsistency was the motive of your question. Specifically, on (Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:54 pm), you wrote:
Yes, and I'm hoping if Ironman answers the above questions, it will explain where the disconnect is...
The fact is, you have actually stated-- flat out-- that you think the full question you posted, repeated, and keep pestering ironman to answer in its entirety will show the 'disconnect' in the thinking of some hypothetical libertarian. Moreover, it's very clear that your pressing ironman not to dodge the "if" part of the question is to get him to see what you think is a disconnect.
So, it is far from true that your messages state or imply that you are not
trying to show a logical disconnect-- you told us you are
trying to show this disconnect and what you are doing is consistent with your explicit statements.