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

My opponent says, "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. " You could retaliate but you couldn't kill them. The force used should not exceed what is necessary to defend oneself. [1] If your life is not in danger than you cannot kill. As far as property goes, you do have a right to protect your property, but with proper warning. If an intruder came onto your property and built something of equal value to a human, you would go after the intruder since he is the one who actually committed the crime. My opponent argues that the problem of duty is not relevant to this debate but I will show why it is worth mentioning. It deals with the issue of property rights versus a duty to not harm others. "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". " This is essentially the ethical egoism argument of Ayn Rand and her opposition to altruism, which I was anticipating might be brought up. To fully address this it may take another debate but to address it briefly I could just look at my opponent's next comment. If you apply this view to its full conclusion you run into problems. If my opponent were to take the same Ethical egoist approach that he did with the man and the boat, then there would be nothing wrong with throwing a toddler out on the street. " This way social services or the police will not come after her for child abuse. " Wouldn't it be at least for this reason that you would save the drowning man; for fear that you would be arrested for murder? My opponent seems to be employing a double standard. [2] This can also be applied to the fetus. We do have self ownership over our own body and property as long as it does not interfere with someone else's. If the non-aggression principal were truly a form of ethical egoism, then there would be no incentive to practice it. In fact, in order to defend liberty, it would be necessary to defend the liberty of the unborn, otherwise you are being inconsistent. It is akin to slave owners owning slaves, therefore violating the individual liberty of some people. [3] Libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano who is a believer I natural law is opposed to abortion. He goes on to say "it should be prohibited, just the way all unjust killings are prohibited". [4] To address some of your specific points: (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. True, but it is a drain on her financially at the very least, but even so would not give justification to simply despose of the toddler. In relation to your point B you say "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. " 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. In closing the pro-life view does not go against libertarian principals. [5] I thank my opponent for this challenging and enlightening round and look forward to his response. 1 . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...+(law) 2 . http://westernstandard.blogs.com... 3 . http://www.l4l.org... 4 . http://reason.com... p.4-5 5 . http://www.l4l.org...