The non-aggression principle supports the pro-choice position

My three points will interdepend on each other to prove my case. I am defending the claim that the non-aggression principle supports the mother's right to abort her fetus up until it has been born and is no longer completely dependent on her in order to survive. Once the fetus has been born, killing is not the only option to remove it and thus killing the fetus after it has been born is not supported by the non-aggression principle. I am only defending killing the fetus before it is "born".Acting to defend one's self is not prohibited by the non-aggression principle.The non-aggression principle specifically prohibits the use of aggression against others. Aggression was defined as the initiation of force, fraud, or coercion against another person or their property. This does not preclude the idea that one could forcefully stop a person from harming them. If a man comes up with a gun and raises it to shoot at me, me forcefully removing the gun from him is not prohibited by the non-aggression principle. When dealing with the non-aggression principle, there is a difference between defense and aggression.The non-aggression principle is connected with the other tenet of libertarianism which is property rights. The non-aggression principle prohibits one from aggressing against another person or their property in an attempt to protect said property rights. So conversely, the non-aggression principle would support one's ability to protect their own property even if this entails deadly force.The fetus(zygote, embryo, baby, exc.) is an aggressor against the mother.This I know is probably a controversial sounding premise. But we must take into account the fact that the term "aggression" when applied to libertarian ethics is used differently from how it is used in ordinary language. In ordinary language, to "aggress" against someone is usually seen as using force against them with some sort of malice intent. The libertarian definition of aggression agrees with the first part of this definition but not with the last. One need not mean to aggress against someone to aggress against them.A fetus aggresses against the mother in the following ways. It takes up space in the mother's body and feeds off of her nutrients. Not to sound cold and uncaring, the libertarian definition of aggression does not take into account malice intent in regards to actions. An aggressive action is an aggressive action regardless of intent. So if an agent is violating one's property rights, they have the right to stop it even if stopping it entails deadly force. However, one could bring up the objection that killing the fetus is too drastic and that the right to life should trump property rights. I will deal with this objection below.The only way to stop the aforementioned aggression by the fetus is to abort.There are two options a woman has when she becomes pregnant. She can either abort the fetus or carry it to term. Up until viality, the fetus cannot be removed without dying. So if the mother does not want the fetus aggressing against her, she must abort it. If there was another option other than aborting the fetus to remve it from the mother's body it would be considered. However there is not and so even though aborting the fetus seems cold and murderous, it is the only option one has to remove it in that the mother's body is the fetus' life support system up until viability. I will go into more detail of my points after I see what specific objections my opponent brings against my points.