Libertarian philosophy supports the pro-choice position

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss in a pleasant and intellectual manner this topic. I appreciate the arguments you have made, and kindly disagree. I echo Pros request that the debate be approached without bias and be judged upon the merit of the arguments presented.Incoherence of Positive rightsCore Libertarian ethics clearly reject all positive rights(1). The pro-life position is not based on the fetus's positive rights (of which they like all humans, have none), but on their negative (non interference) rights. The right to life is a non interference right. It is the right to be NOT be killed or injured, hence the term negative right. As the burden of proof is Pros, I will not go into further detail, I will simple state that you must prove that the right of choice of the mother supersedes the right to life of the fetus or you must prove that the fetus is not a complete person(2). Pro suggests that fetus has no right to be sheltered or otherwise taken care of by the mother. Following this logic, mothers and fathers have no responsibility to care for their children because being cared for by your parents is a positive right, being born or unborn does not factor into it. I will touch more on this later. Foetus as an AggressorThe right to life , in libertarian ethics, is bound to the concept that we are the sole proprietors of our bodies. This same argument extends to the right to defend against aggression, that libertarians support, as long as it follows non interference principles. Specifically, that my defense specifically responds to the aggressor and does not interfere with others rights who are not aggressors. Once again, pro must prove that the right to defend of the mother supersede the right to life of the fetus. I do not believe he has done this. Furthermore, he has gone as far to suggest that the fetus is a parasite. That the fetus is in fact the aggressor, and that the fetus was created not by choices made by the mother but by some unwanted assailant (which may be true in the case of pregnancy due to rape, which is another issue for debate). He then asserts that it is within her rights to remove this unwanted aggressor, while ignoring, once again, the fetus's right to life and non aggression.Contracts as rightsIf we fully examine libertarian concept we see an interesting principle arise(3). While we have no inherent positive rights, libertarian ethics does hold the fulfilment contracts as a right. A contract once made, is not a positive right, but a negative right by agreement. Upon agreeing to a contract with another, a libertarian, has made the fulfillment of that contract an essential component of the rights to whom the contract was made. A common mistake made in the course of abortion debates is the lack of recognition that there were choices made that resulted in a pregnancy and these choices have consequences. Under pure libertarian ethics one's negative rights are all that matter, this does not mean however that their are no consequences to your choices. In that regard, libertarians believe that marriage is a voluntary contractual option, specifically they support civil unions(4). Government's role is then to enforce the contract if need be, but it is the consenting adults who enter into this contract in the first place. Similarly when adopting a child , parents enter into a contract. This contract terminates the parent-child relationship of the biological parents and cedes them to the adoptive parents(5). If legal recognition of this relationship can be ceded, then this "contract" between the biological parents and the child must have already existed. I would also argue as that the fetus had no voice in the initial contract as to whom their biological parents were to be, the fetus has a greater right to have his/her end of the contract fulfilled then the free thinking and fully aware adults whom consented to intercourse that resulted in the fetus's conception.ConclusionThus, for a pure libertarian to abort a child, they would be violating the fetus's right to non aggression and his/her right to life. They would also be violating the contract which they knowingly (though perhaps they were hoping wouldn't have) entered into. Pure libertarian ethics does not mean freedom of choice without consequence.Sources (1)http://www.wku.edu...(2)http://www.wku.edu...(3)http://www.wku.edu... (paragraph 5) (4)http://www.libertarianism.com... (5)http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...