Libertarian philosophy supports the pro-choice position

I thank you for your well organized and politely presented arguments.Incoherence of Positive RightsMy opponent is attempting to present a very subtle red herring. My original argument asserted that there were no positive rights, and I extended the logic of this to parental obligation both in and out of the womb. I agreed there is no positive right, I then went on to show that there is contractual obligation (a negative right by choice) between parents and children. I did not argue however that the parents of born children had positive rights to being cared for.However,Rothbard cannot be used to argue this case because Rothbard logic asserts that contracts do not actual exist in pure libertarianism. Rothbard reasons that we are self owners, our will is absolute and inalienable. He states that you cannot sell yourself into slavery because being a slave would entail the surrender of your will. Extending this logic, a contract is something you agree to do in the future, how then is one to handle the situation in which at that future time you have decided that you no longer wish to fulfill that contract? Because your will is inalienable, to be compelled to fulfill the obligations of the contract is a violation of your non interference rights(1). My opponent has conceded that pure libertarian ethics view contractual obligations as rights. Therefore his use of Rothbard as supporting reason is a contradiction and invalid.Fetus as an AggressorThe right to life supersedes the right to choose, for without the right to life there is no right of choice (without life there are no rights at all). Therefore, if the fetus attains person hood at conception, the fetus has a right to life and this right to life supersedes the mothers right of choice because in all cases the right of life is of greater importance than the right to choose. Similarly the right to life supersedes the right of non aggression, except perhaps in the case where aggression will violate ones right to life. Again, my opponent has not shown that the mother's right to choose supersedes the right of life in libertarian ethics.Contracts as RightsA lack of legal status only means that the contract will not be enforced by the government. This, however, does not mean the contract does not exist, especially from an ethical perspective. Verbal agreements are very difficult to prove, they are however still contracts where the two parties involved are concerned. The existence of a contract does not depend on the ability to prove it was entered into by two parties. My opponent suggests that the libertarian ethic is one of free will without consequence, contract without obligation. I argue that it is not. Our choices are contracts with consequence(used as a noun here). If our choice leads to a negative outcome and additional choices allow us to avoid that outcome without violating the non interference rights of others then we are free to make them and breach the contract with consequence. However, it is circular logic to argue that the consequences of my choices that lead to a situation in which my next choice will violate the non interference rights of another invalidates their right to non interference in the first place, because of my right to choose. Furthermore, because pregnancy is a choice, not a random consequence (which one could argue don't exist anyways) the mother has in fact entered into a contract with the consequence of her choice. In this case the consequence of her choice has its own rights, thus any act against that consequence that violates those rights is a violation of the libertarian ethic as it concerns the fetus and a violation of the libertarian ethic as it concerns the mothers contractual obligation.Sources (1)http://www.l4l.org...