The non-aggression principle supports the pro-choice position

My opponent begins his case by bringing contention to my point that since a fetus can be viable up to four and a half months premature, abortion is not the only way to stop the pregnancy and thus the non-aggression principle does not support the abortion of a potentialy viable fetus. My point of disagreement with this line of reasoning is as follows. My contention was that abortion is "The only way to stop the aforementioned aggression by the fetus is to abort." My opponent correctly points out that there are other measures that could be taken to keep the fetus alive, however he never shows why doing these stops aggression against the mother. That was my point. My opponent seems to be trying to distract readers from the central premise of my argument.Let's take an analogy. Suppose that a dog is going around biting people. It may not be doing this on purpose since dog's do not actually understand that what they are doing is innapropriate or even wrong. Though from the perspective of the non-aggression principle, one is justified in defending themselves from the dog's aggression. If the only way to end the aggression against themselves is to put the dog down, the non-aggression principle allows it. My opponent argues though that abortion is not the only way. He misrepresents my argument entirely. Abortion is the only way to stop aggression against the mother at once. Being forced to undergo surgery is aggression. The mother should not be forced to do anything to her body that she does not consent to.Contention One: Acting to defend one's self is not prohibited by the non-aggression principle.My opponent's objection to this point is as follows. "The NAP allows for defense, however excessive force is not always justified. This is a situation in which excessive force is not justified." But as I have explained before, there is no other way to stop the aggression being taken against the mother. A C-section, while being relatively safe, should not be forced on to a person as per the non-aggression principle. We own our own bodies and so we should not be forced to have a surgery even if that surgery would safe another's life. If you hit a pedestrian with your car and inadvertantly ruptured the person's kidney, would the non-aggression principle justify forcing you to give him one of your own? No. Criminal charges may br brought if you are found liable, but the non-aggression principle does not allow for you to control another's body.Contention Two: The fetus (zygote, embryo, baby, exc.) is an aggressor against the mother.My opponent firstly, objects to the idea that the fetus can be counted as an aggressor. He defines it more as an "innocent aggressor" and calls my libertarian definition of aggression "ad hoc". He argues that the only way to justify my contention would be to 'change' the definition of aggression to mean aggression without regards to intent. But did I actually change the definition? I already explained that the libertarian definition of "aggression" differs form it's usual use in everyday language just as the word 'liberal' has a different meaning in the U.S. from the one in Western Europe.Even in a laymen's dictionary, we can see that there are different definitions for aggression. Aggression: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master[1]. The intent as one can see is not the core of the definition. While intent to harm and actual harm are not mutually exclusive concepts, if one breaks down the definition of "aggression" the sole requisite is harm to another or violation of their rights. A libertarian website defines the non-aggression axiom as one's "to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another"[2]So even the concept that the non-libertarian definition of aggression necessitates intent to harm as a requisite is a stretch. However, when dealing with the libertarian definition of aggression, it is clear that harming someone or violating their rights is all that is needed to "aggress" against them.Contention Three: The only way to stop the aforementioned aggression by the fetus is to abort.My opponent's objection to my last contention is pretty much the same is his objection to my first contention. He argues that a fetus can be delivered and thus saved from death if it is delivered after it achieves viability. However I will repeat my first point. My contention was that the only way to stop the aggression against the mother is to abort. I did not, and never intended to, argue that abortion was the only way to stop the mother from being pregnant or bearing the responsibility of a child.My opponent's last point is that even if we accept that killing the fetus is the only way to stop the pregnancy(again, I never argued this point), this is more reason not to kill it. I don't exactly follow his reasoning in that he gives no justification for it. Though he ends by arguing that the weaker desrve "more protection, not less". Where did I argue that fetus' deserve less protection than anyone else? If it were a 30 year old man in a woman's womb, a 15 year old girl, or a 81 year old transexual, the non-aggression principle would still support abortion. No one inherently deserve more protection than another under the non-aggression principle.I would like to thank my opponent for this debate even as it was unfortunately cut short. Vote Pro.[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.lewrockwell.com...