The Libertarian view of Nonaggression supports the pro-life position.

My opponent argues that one is only justified in retaliating in a manner that is necessary to defend oneself. However I argued this exact point in my syllogism. The abortion of the fetus is necessary if the mother is to have her own property rights protected. I argued this in P(F). (F)Aborting the organism is the only way to prohibit the organism from further invading the mother's property and stealing her nutrients. There is no other way to make sure that the mother's property rights are not further violated. In the case of this being before the baby is able to sustain itself outside of the womb, it would necessarily die anyways. In th case that is able to sustain itself outside of the womb, the medical costs, pain of child birth, irreparable damage to the mother's body and the possible illnesses related to pregnancy outweigh the life of the body. If my opponent objects to this he should bring up a reason why, according to the non-aggression principle, the fetus has a right to life that trumps the mother's right to her life and property. My opponent then argues that one is retaliating against the wrong person. However he misinterprets my point. It is the fetus that is aggressing against the mother's property. It is the fetus that is occupying itself inside the mother's womb and it is the fetus who is nourishing itself off of the mother's nutrients. If the mother chooses to retaliate against the person who got her pregnant that would be one thing, but these two options are not mutually exclusive. Next my opponent brings back up his point that according to the non-aggression principle, one has a duty to help the drowning man. He argues that I am employing a double standard when arguing that it is in the mother's best interest to give the children up for adoption but then arguing that the man has no duty to help the drowning man. Again my opponent simply misinterprets my argument. It may be in one's self interest to give one's children up for adoption, but that is very different from it being one's duty to do so. If a mother decides to retaliate against her children by throwing them on to the street, it is not technically violating the non-aggression principle since she is defending her property. So when I say that it is in the mother's self interest not to do this, I am far from arguing that she has some sort of duty to do it. So the man on the boat has something to gain from helping the drowning man, but the non-aggression principle does not command that he does so. Next my opponent says this: //"We do have self ownership over our own body and property as long as it does not interfere with someone else's."// This is a gross misunderstanding of the non-aggression principle. My opponent assumes that acting against someone else's person or property is always aggressing, however the non-aggression principle is very careful in defining the difference between "aggressing" and "retaliating". If a person aggresses against your property(as in the case of the fetus) you are allowed(according to the non-aggression principle) to retaliate against that individual(does not count as violating their rights). My opponent next argues: //"If the non-aggression principal were truly a form of ethical egoism, then there would be no incentive to practice it."// The incentive to practice it is self interest and egoism. If you aggress against someone else's property they are entitled to retaliation. It is therefore in your own self interest not to aggress against their property. My opponent then brings up an objection to P(A). //"it(the newborn) is a drain on her financially at the very least, but even so would not give justification to simply despose of the toddler."// The non-aggression principle justifies one acting in a manner that is needed to prevent further aggression. It was my opponent that said that the mother should kick the newborn out on to the street. It is the mother's right is she wishes, however I already showed that it would not be in her own self interest and so this would likely not happen. The last point that my opponent brings is in response to something I said that went along the lines of "Putting the newborn child up for adoption minimizes aggression against the mother and so is in line with the non-aggression principle." He responds with: //"This is true, and the act of abortion itself is in general causes more harm even to the mother than caring the baby to term."// Again, the act of abortion is necessary to stop the aggression being brought against the mother. There is nothing else that can be done that stops the aggression at that point.