Among the many virtues of Governor Palin is her willingness - if not eagerness - to self-identify as a feminist.

I realize that the term causes no small amount of discomfort for most conservatives, and many libertarians; this is understandable, as feminism’s extreme genera are responsible for more intellectual atrocities than I can count (here’s a tip, kids: when an ideological movement starts inventing “alternative” epistomologies, claiming that the scientific method is somehow phalically tainted, run like hell). However, the more liberal varieites of feminism are to be lauded: at its most basic level, feminism can be defined as the belief that men and women are of equal moral value. Methinks one would be hard-pressed to find anyone from any mainstream ideological persuasion who would argue otherwise.

With that settled, let us turn to Palin’s left-wing, feminist detractors. Their claim is, simply put, that it is impossible for one to be both a feminist and pro-life simultaneously; that the two labels are, in a sense, mutually exclusive. (As a side note: I hear the same type of thing from my fundamentalist Christian friends, who occasionally inform me that I cannot simultaneously believe in human evolution and seek salvation through Jesus Christ.) As a colleague of mine recently put it, “how can you believe that feminism is about choice while at the same time denying women the right to choose what to do with their bodies?” This is a common argument, often followed by the all-too-predictable “if you don’t believe abortion is morally acceptable, don’t have one.”

As a libertarian, I am immediately sympathetic to arguments which rest on individual sovereignty and self-ownership; in fact, I have often made a similar argument regarding the legal prohibition of narcotics: if you don’t like drugs, don’t do any. But when applied to abortion, this type of argument misses the point entirely.

As is the case with almost all individuals in the pro-life camp, Palin’s position on abortion rests firmly on her belief that life begins at conception. Thus, a fertilized embryo has the same intrinsic value as do I. Putting aside for a moment the empirical, theological and philosophical considerations surrounding this belief, let us consider its implications: if life begins at conception, anyone terminating a pregnancy is by definition committing murder. Thus, the aforementioned argument - from Palin’s perspective - can be translated as follows: “if you don’t believe in murder, don’t kill anyone.”

The inherrent absurdity of this allegory needs no elaboration. My point can be summed up by noting that in order to be logically consistent, anyone who believes that life begins at conception and opposes murder is logically obligated to oppose abortion as well. This truism stands without any reference to the rights of women or feminism.

Of course, if a person believes (as I do) that life does not begin at conception, things become much more complicated. While most Christians cite various Biblical passages as evidence of their beliefs on the subject, a discussion of Biblical hermeneutics is well beyond the scope of the present post. If one wishes to knock down the pro-life argument by discussing the ontological properties of an individual human life, they can be my guest. But at its core - at least for people like Sarah Palin - abortion has nothing at all to do with feminism. Those in the pro-choice camp would do well to recognize this fact.