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

Seeing as my opponent agreed to my definitions I will now move to his objections to each of my points. I will only list premises or conclusions that my opponent took issue with. My opponent first takes issue with the mother's right to violent self defense of her property when necessary. He does not take issue with whether or not the mother should be allowed to defend herself, but my opponent seems to argue that the mother should only be given that right when her life is in danger. However, according to the non-aggression principle, one is given the right to self defense in response to another individual or group of individual's initiating force against one's property. One's life need not be in danger to retaliate. According to the non-aggression principle I am justified in retaliating against someone who kicks me in the groin even though my life may not necessarily be in danger. My opponent's next point is that the fetus is not an intruder into the mother's body as it originated there. I must admit I have never heard this argument before. However it falls apart under scrutiny seeing as one cannot create property inside an already existing piece of private property. To use an example, I cannot walk on to your private property, build a small shack and proclaim it to be my own property. In doing so you have invaded and aggressed upon my own property. The next argument my opponent employs we may call the 'Problem of Duty'. My opponent argues that one has some sort of moral obligation to help another in trouble when it is within the realm of possibility to do so. There are a few objections I have to this argument, namely, where does my opponent get this sense of duty from the non-aggression principle? The resolution is purely over whether or not the pro-choice position is supported by the non-aggression principle. This argument not only has nothing to do with the non-aggression principle, but actually contradicts it when you compare the two. To understand why we must break down the non-aggression principle. What is the purpose of it? The purpose can be reasonably supposed to mean that one should not act protect one's assets. Notice that in the non-aggression principle, force is only called for when one initiates force against someone else's property. The non-aggression principle is an inherently egoistic principle. This of course lies in direct contradiction to such an altruistic principle as "Help who you can". So not only should this point have not been brought up in the first place by my opponent, as it does not help his own case in the slightest, but this argument lies in complete opposition to the non-aggression principle and so cannot possibly help his case. So even if we agree that it would not cost one much effort or strength to help one on to his boat, thus saving him from drowning, one is in no way obliged to according to the non-aggression principle. My opponent also attacks Point D. It says: (D)A fetus, embryo is aggressing against the mother by invading her body and living off of her nutrients. - Premise My opponent simply tries to perform a Reducto ad Absurdum and claims that one could, according to my line of reasoning, assume that "a newborn or a toddler" is aggressing against the mother and so the non-aggression principle justifies her in kicking them out to the street. There are however a few key differences between the example my opponent provided and my actual argument. (A)The toddler or newborn are not necessarily feeding off of her nutrients by their very existence and so a toddler and newborn are not necessarily aggressing. (B)There are other option for a mother if a toddler or newborn are aggressing that would bring less force initiated against her in the event that she does as my opponent describes. She might put the children up for adoption. This way social services or the police will not come after her for child abuse. It is in line with the non-aggression principle to put the children up for adoption as it minimizes aggression against the mother. My opponent's example multiplies the amount of aggression brought against the mother. My opponent's example is not in line with the non-aggression principle. I have sufficiently responded to my opponent's objections to my points. The resolution continues to be negated.