Libertarian philosophy supports the pro-choice position

Incoherence of Positive RightsIt is not I whose misinterpreted his words, but Rothbard himself who has generated circular reasoning, though he avoids the issue and would likely argue, as Pro has, that it isn't circular reasoning. If a contract cannot be enforced, because forcing someone to fulfill a contract which they do not want to fulfill is an act of aggression(because my will is inalienable and thus to be forced is to be violated), then by choosing to no longer want to fulfill your contract, under Rothbard's theories , you have freed yourself from the ethical requirement to do so and created an ethical dilemma for the one who desires to enforce the contract. Pro did not refute this position, in fact he simple restated Rothbardian theory , as if to restate the theory and cite the source would remove the paradoxical logic. Foetus as an AggressorMy argument never ignored Pro's points, Pro has repeated identical arguments in all rounds. Continually arguing that the fetus is an aggressor and that a fetus (despite conceding life begins at conception) has no actual rights. He has not shown how the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the fetus. Further more he has clarified that the right to life is an extension of ones right to property, as if this would support the case that the fetus has no such rights, thus it is the mothers prerogative to murder him/her. I will first clarify that the right to life supersedes all other rights, does not suggest a separation of this right from the property rights from which it is extended. In pros example, the aggressor's right to life is compromised because of his CHOICE to violate the property rights of another. This was HIS choice, thus he must accept the consequences because of the contract that is formed when that choice is made. His attempt to avoid the consequences and preserve his own rights are unethical. This example however does not apply to the fetus and mother situation because unlike the man who entered into another mans house and refused to leave, the fetus was not the one who chose to enter the womb. The choice was that of the mothers. It was the mother who entered into a contract by choice and it is the mothers property rights that have been compromised because of her choice. In an earlier example, Pro cited the case of inviting someone into your home and the later asking them to leave and them refusing. He suggests that while a fetus may be the result of the choice, once the mother has changed her mind she is no longer bound to her original choice. Instead she can turn a once invited guest into an aggressor, simple by choosing to do so. This choice, however violates the rights of the fetus, and thus is an unethical choice. This would be similar to giving someone a gift and then demanding it back by force simple because you changed your mind. Contracts as RightsPro once again contradicts himself. He maintains his position of circular logic surrounding contracts, yet belabors a point of legal standing. If the fulfillment of a contract is not wanted by an individual then the enforcement of that contract would be a violation of the individuals rights. Aside from contradicting himself by belaboring the point, he continues to argue that contracts are only valid if they are legally enforceable. I have already refuted this point. A contract does not require a legal enforceability to exist, especially ethically. Enforcing the outcome of the contract my be impossible without appealing to a higher authority, it does not however mean that the contract did not exist. Before 1819 and Darthmouth College V. Woodward(1) ,Corporations were not considered legal persons. They legally could not enter into contracts. However, this did not mean they did not, it simple meant that prior to 1819 the contracts made by corporations were not legally enforceable. The government and people at the time went to court over the issue and the courts ruled they were legal persons and thus contracts made the courts would enforce. As an example, if two eight year old children are playing at school and they agree to trade toys, they have entered into a contract in which they have transferred ownership of their toys via trade. If one boy then renege on this contract and attempts to take back his toy they would certainly not be able to appeal to the government to enforce this contract legally, but that does not invalidate their original agreement. My opponents basic argument is that if person A was 18, person B was 18 and person C was 8, then a verbal agreement between person A and B would be an ethically enforceable and binding contract but an agreement between person A and C would not be, and person A is not in fact obligated to fulfill his end of the contract, because unless its a legally binding contract it isn't an ethically binding one. To argue in libertarian ethics, that contracts are only contracts if they are legally binding is to argue that our choices do not generate ethically binding consequences. Thus debating any position of ethics within libertarianism would be pointless. Additionally, agreements are entered into in many forms. A handshake, a signature, verbal acknowledgement and more. In many situations there are even unspoken contracts, the division of labor in a marriage is a good example of this (it often leads to fights, because of the lack of communication). Because a fetus cannot speak, does not mean he has not agreed. By simple fact that he exists we have to assume that he agrees to the terms of the contract set forth at conception, to do otherwise would violate his right to property. Because his rights are negative , just like ours, until he agrees to the dissolution of the contract we have to assume he has accepted it. The ultimate crux of my opponents arguments is that the fetus is not a person. He argues that because there is no legal context for a contract the fetus in effect has no rights because they cannot be enforced. He argues its insane to suggest there is a contract when only one party is involved, but there are TWO parties involved. The mother and the fetus. As he agreed that person hood is obtained at conception, he cannot argue that there is only one party involved, when there are in fact two, without first proving that the fetus is not a full person and thus doesn't not have equal rights as the mother. He has not done this. I thank all those that take time to read this debate and vote. Sources(1). http://en.wikipedia.org...