The non-aggression principle supports the pro-choice position

The Instigator seems to be okay with abortions up to the point of birth. However, he has also stated that once the child has been born, killing it is not the only option to remove it and thus killing it after it has been born is not supported by the non-aggression principle. However, this seems to be a contradictory stance since a child can be viable up to about four and a half months premature. In that case, killing it is not the only option to remove it and therefore I don't see how the non-aggression principle can be used to defend the abortion of a viable fetus.Contention One: Acting to defend one's self is not prohibited by the non-aggression principle.Self-defense is, of course, a necessary action at times. However, excessive force cannot be used to defense oneself from harm. In order for deadly force to be justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or other innocents. [1] Pregnancy is a safe, natural biological reaction to sexual intercourse. While I would say that there are too many women who die as a result of pregnancy (one woman dying is one too many), only about 14.5 in 100,000 women die as a result of their pregnancy. [2] This means that pregnancy is safer than driving a car, in which 1 in 6,000 people die as a result of car wrecks. [3] This means that in most cases, there is not threat of death or severe bodily harm done to the woman carrying the child. Excessive force, such as killing the fetus, is not justified. And in the rare cases that the woman's life is in immediate jeopardy (e.g. ectopic pregnancies) and the child is not yet viable (a c-section can be done to save both mother and child in these instances), then abortions would be justified. Only fringe pro-lifers would disagree in the cases of her life being in jeopardy.This even goes for protection of property. Deadly force is not justified unless there is a threat of death or serious bodily injury.Contention Two: The fetus (zygote, embryo, baby, exc.) is an aggressor against the mother.I'm not sure why the instigator is lumping "baby" in as an aggressor here (perhaps he can elaborate next round). However, the unborn are not aggressors. If anything, they could be considered "innocent aggressors." Conceiving a child is a natural byproduct of sexual intercourse. The zygote/embryo/fetus is not responsible for being there. They have no choice but to be there. They are in the only place in the entire universe they can survive, grow, develop, and thrive. In most cases, it's the sexually active woman and man who put them there. They decide to have sexual relations which may result in pregnancy. To conceive a needy child, only to later put that child to death, seems to me like a much more aggressive act than the zygote/embryo/fetus who is only following their natural biological functions that the woman and man set into motion.Additionally, Tim indicates that the libertarian definition of aggression is different from how it is used in ordinary language. However, this is a completely ad hoc definition. The only way to justify killing the unborn embryo/fetus is if you change the definition of aggressor to mean anyone who "aggresses" against you with or without malice intent.Now, pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely rare and only account for about 1-2% of abortions. [4] So in the vast majority of cases, the man and woman were responsible for conceiving the child. Now, don't get me wrong. Rape is a horrible, horrible crime that no one should ever have to endure, and I am in favor of stricter punishments for rapists. However, while the woman certainly isn't responsible for conceiving the child, neither is the child responsible for being there. Deadly force still would not be justified to remove the unborn embryo or fetus from the womb.From what I understand of pregnancy, the developing embryo/fetus does not rob his/her mother of any nutrients. "Eating for two" is actually a myth. They share nutrients while the child is developing. This is not a violation of rights but a completely natural way for the developing child to nourish herself.Contention Three: The only way to stop the aforementioned aggression by the fetus is to abort.Again, this contention goes against Tim's statement about defending the killing of the fetus before birth. He readily admits that once the fetus is viable, she can be delivered and survive. Therefore, this would show that abortion would not be justified at all times before birth.To reiterate, deadly force is not justified in these matters. If killing the embryo/fetus is the only way to stop the pregnancy, then this is all the more reason not to kill the developing child. Someone who is weaker deserves more protection, not less; otherwise, it is bullying. Tim has not given any reason why killing an embryo/fetus would be justified under a "non-aggression" view, especially since killing someone is definitely an aggressive act.[1] http://definitions.uslegal.com...; [2] http://www.emaxhealth.com...;[3] http://adventure.howstuffworks.com...;[4] http://www.nytimes.com...;