The Libertarian view of Nonaggression supports the pro-life position.

First, my opponent asks why a woman's right to property trumps the fetus' right to it's well being. The reason is that we are arguing from the non-aggression principle. According to the non-aggression principle, one is justified in retaliating against another who initiates force against one's property insofar as not doing so would result in continued aggression against one's person or property. So, since the fetus is aggressing against the mother's property and there is nothing else that can be done to stop this other than aborting it, according to the non-aggression principle one would be justified in doing so. Next my opponent argues: //"Are property rights more important than the right to life? I would say, according to the nonaggression principle it doesn't because if someone wanders onto your property, you cannot shoot them without fair warning."// False analogy. There are other options besides shooting the guy. One could ask him to leave and if he doesn't do so forcefully remove him. There is no other option in this case, other than allowing the fetus to continue initiating aggression against the mother. According to the non-aggression principle, the mother is justified in aborting the fetus. My opponent then goes on to argue: //"The true aggressor is whoever provided the sperm since it is not the fetus's fault that he/she exists."// Again, my opponent is not looking at my actual argument. I already argued in the last round that the person who provided the sperm being an aggressor does not mean that the fetus is not one. These two things are not mutually exclusive. I do agree that the non-aggression principle would justify one taking actions against whoever got you pregnant(in the case of rape), however this does not absolve the fetus of aggression. Next my opponent responds to me writing this in response to his scenario regarding a mother being justified in kicking her toddler out on to the street for aggressing against her. //"I was saying that in order to be consistent under ethical egoism one might come to that conclusion, and that no rational person would go for that."// My opponent here makes what I would call the Argument from Common Sense Fallacy. He argues that a rational person would not come to the conclusion which he logically took from a premise of mine. However he showed absolutely no reason why this is either morally wrong or goes against the non-aggression principle. He simply assumes that it is common sense or common morality. However that will not due in a debate. One must bring up sound logic in defense of one's points. My opponent has not done so here. Next I will look at my opponent's last arguments. He argues that abortion can have effects on the woman's body that are worse than the effects of carrying the fetus to term. Let's look at the source which he provides. http://www.abortionfacts.com... In the source it provides a list of possible complications that may arise during an elective abortion. However nowhere in it does the source say how often these complications occur. So I looked for myself and found a non-biased neutral medical site[1] which showed that in the United States, mortality caused by an elective abortion occurred in "1/1,000,000 with surgical abortion through 63 days gestation". While complications may arise from any medical procedure, mortality during elective abortions is not frequent enough that a woman would choose not to have one from an egoistic perspective. Also, as to my opponent's last point that abortion may have risks of causing the woman who chooses to have one to have an increased risk of suicide, this does not actually help my opponent's case. He is arguing that the non-aggression principle supports the pro-life position, which was defined as support for the "legal prohibition or restriction" of a woman's right to an abortion. At best this argument supports my argument that a woman should have a choice of whether or not to have an abortion, at worst it is completely unrelated to my opponent's position. The resolution has been negated. I have shown why the non-aggression principle does support the pro-choice position and consequently cannot support the pro-life position. I hope that voters will read this debate carefully before making a decision and vote based on who argued their position the best, rather than their own personal opinion. I would also like to thank my opponent for a debate with a twist on such a hotly debated issue. Vote Con. [1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...