The Homesteading principle contradicts Self-ownership

I would first like to clarify one thing before going into the arguments. It is not that I see that the mother owns the baby itself, but the baby's body. 1) A Challenge on Ownership My opponent is right, in that this is wholly different from building a table, or really, the manufacturing of anything. However, it is not that much different from someone who isn't a manufacturer, like say, a farmer. A farmer cannot will the sun to shine, nor can he will the rain to fall, or the seeds which he planted to grow. However, I don't think my opponent, nor libertarian philosophy in general, would argue that the farmer does not own his crop during the entire time it is growing. My opponent may say that the farmer willed the crop and exerted his labor by tilling the soil and planting the seeds, but in the case of having a baby, can that not also be true for a women? Can she not have sex with the willed intention of having a baby? Regarding a fallen limb, I would assume that you would be the owner of it, even if someone should pick it up first. Unless of course, you left it on the ground willingly, and so it would be considered abandoned property and be owned by the first to take it and labor upon it. But should it just fall off, and I grab it first while you are attempting to grab it, I wouldn't think that any libertarian would agree that the arm is mine instead of yours. 2) Resolving the Issue of Child Ownership My opponent states, "allotting a form of limited or "trustee" ownership to the caretaker of the child until it reaches maturity. " Now, for this to make sense I will first clarify the word "allotting. " According to the dictionary, this means "to assign as a share or portion" [1]. But I ask, who is doing the assigning? At the early stages of pregnancy (any time between conception and the baby reaches self-ownership) the baby is nothing more than a group of cells with no rights (since it does not meet the definition of personhood). Any entity coming in and telling the mother that she has "limited ownership" over something that has no legal difference than a farmer's crop, would be a violation of her property rights. 3) The Final Issue of Self-Ownership and Homesteading Here, my opponent goes into a more philosophicaly arguement and claims that the right of homesteading or therefore owning any property is dependent that object not claiming self-ownership of itself. While this sounds inherently true, upon just a little bit of digging, we find this to be the equivilent of theft, that is, non-agreed transition of property from one ownership to another. The baby's body was owned by the mother, once the baby reaches the level of self-ownership, it takes ownership of its body, even if against the mother's (the current owner's) will. It is this very theft, even if we agree that the baby "should" hold self-ownership, that is the contridiction between the two. It wouldn't be hard if placed before a court to look at this. The body was owned, by accepted libertarian philosophies, by the mother. It was her property. Then the baby took ownership of that property without the mother's consent. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...