The non-aggression principle supports the pro-choice position

I am not trying to detract from my opponent's central premise, I am pointing out the inconsistency in his position. He makes the case that abortion is "the only way to stop the aforementioned aggression by the fetus is to abort. " But this isn't the case when the unborn fetus is viable. If killing the child would "stop the aggression," then so would delivering the child and keeping them alive. Therefore the resolution is negated, because when the fetus is viable, they can be delivered rather than killed and still survive (obviously, the later, the better chance of survival). Killing them would be a use of excessive force, because they can be delivered and survive. In fact, abortion is not the only way to "stop the aggression" because the child can be carried to term and then delivered. Abortion is an unnecessary act of aggression against an innocent, unborn human being. Next Tim makes an analogy with a dog, but this doesn't compare because we're dealing in human beings. Humans are rational moral agents, with an inherent capacity to reason and understand the world around us. Dogs are not. While dogs and other animals are protected by law, they are treated as property and not equal to humans. Animal rights is a topic for another debate. But killing an unborn human is not like killing a dog because a member of our own species is being killed. Tim also makes the assertion that being forced to undergo surgery is aggression, but abortions are surgery (the morning after pill and RU-486 notwithstanding). So delivering the child after nine months, or going through a c-section, is no different than undergoing abortion, except that a child is being saved and not killed. I have not misrepresented Tim's position, I don't think he made it very clear. He never stated that abortion is the only way to stop aggression against the mother "at once" until this round, but I still fail to see how this is relevant. Abortion is not the only way to "stop aggression" against the mother by the fetus, so therefore the non-aggression principle does not support the pro-choice position. Also keep in mind that the unborn child is not an "aggressor," only under the ad hoc Libertarian definition. Contention One: Acting to defend one's self is not prohibited by the non-aggression principle. An abortion would be a surgery. This would not be forcing the mother to undergo a surgery in lieu of abortion, it would really be substituting one surgery for another. She'll have to undergo surgery either way, as abortions are a surgical procedure. The analogy of the car actually serves to make my case. The unborn are not aggressors against the woman. In fact, in the vast majority of cases, the woman and man consented to sexual intercourse which results in the creation of a child. You can say consent to sex doesn't mean consent to pregnancy, but consent to sex does mean you're responsible for any life created. If you consent to drive you might not consent to hitting someone, but if you do you are still responsible for that person. A woman and man who creates a needy child then aborts that child is committing a much greater act of aggression than the unborn child who is there because two people instituted the act that created him/her. Contention Two: The fetus (zygote, embryo, baby, exc. ) is an aggressor against the mother. The instigator states that since "liberal" has a different meaning in the U. S. and Europe, that it is perfectly acceptable to use a definition here that differs from its everyday use. However, that is different from living in the U. S. and using a different definition than one that is in everyday use. You can't simple change words to mean whatever you want them to in order to support your case. Also, using a Libertarian website to define aggression is circular reasoning. If you are defending the Libertarian definition of aggression, I would expect Libertarian websites to agree with you. Regarding the dictionary definition, it actually seems to me that intent is at the core of the definition, since the example listed was an unprovoked attack, and since it indicated that the intended result was to dominate or master. It is not just true that the unborn are "innocent aggressors" who are there not because their will desired it, but because biology required it, but it is also true that they are there in the first place due to an act by a woman and man who engaged in sexual intimacy which, biologically, results in the creation of a living human. Contention Three: The only way to stop the aforementioned aggression by the fetus is to abort. Again, I will reiterate that the unborn is there because the woman and man put him/her there. Killing that unborn child through abortion is a greater act of aggression because the unborn really are not aggressors. They were put there by the two engaged in sexual intimacy. He contends that abortion is the only way to stop the aggression against the mother, but in his first round argument he also stated, "If there was another option other than aborting the fetus to remove it from the mother's body it would be considered. " C-sections are a method to remove a viable fetus from the mother's body and therefore, the non-aggression principle does not apply. I thank the Instigator for this debate.