[tpaine]

Thus, having established the inalienable nature of the right to life,

Not at issue.

as a necessary precondition of the emergence of the Hobbesian state of war;

Libertarians are not anarchists.

and also having shown through irrefutable biological science that life begins at conception;

'Bio life' does not trump the rights of the mother.. See post #10

knowing that a life conceived is unique, as evidenced by its unique DNA;

Not at issue.

it therefore follows that the right to life exists at the moment of conception.

Not so. The legal consequenses of such a theory would be ludicrous. -- In effect, all fertile females from conception to viablity could be charged with murder for aborting..

Noting that inalienable rights do not compel any other human to act, but rather compel him to refrain from acting in a way that infringes upon the rights of others,

You are begging the question that the mothers non-viable baby has inalienable rights, separate from its mother. They cannot be separated. Thus, the mothers rights are inalienable.

I continue, that the right to life compels others not to perform any act intended to end a human life other than in the context of a Hobbesian state of war.

Defense of your own life and body is not anarchy, -- "a Hobbesian state of war".

Thus, if there is to be any respect for the right to life, it is therefore necessary to compel individuals to respect that right,

Hobson's choice. A dilemma.. How to "compel" liberty? I choose the womans freedom over a states compulsory 'laws'.. In fact, I contend the state has been given no power to compel in this issue.
Before viablity, abortion is not a criminal act.

and thus, abortion, which is explicitly intended to end another human life, cannot be countenanced by any free people.

Free people cannot countenace governmental powers that intrude upon an individuals life & liberty to this extent. The enforcement of such prohibitory laws violate our basic constitutional principles.

Such is the libertarian case against abortion; if to be libertarian is in fact to respect the liberty of others.

I find your case more authoritarian than libertarian.

[MayDay72]

All of your arguments are based on protecting the rights of the woman from intrusive actions by the state other invividuals. I understand this. And this is clearly the right position if the woman is the only individual with rights that would be effected by her decision [i.e. this would be a 'victimless act'].

But how can you be sure that the fetus has no rights? When do these rights begin [conception, birth, some other time]? Should we arbitrarily decide that the fetus has no rights simply because it makes the issue so much 'cleaner' [one involved individual rather than two] or because the woman can argue for her rights but the unborn cannot represent themselves?

[thoughtomator]

Okay then. It is established that the right to life is inalienable; and that libertarians do not desire the conditions of Hobbes' state of war; and that a life conceived is unique, as evidenced by its unique DNA.

'Bio life' does not trump the rights of the mother.. See post #10

Can you please define what you mean by 'bio life'. Are we all not biologically alive? What distinguishes 'bio life' from other life?

"it therefore follows that the right to life exists at the moment of conception. [thoughtomator]

Not so. The legal consequenses of such a theory would be ludicrous. -- In effect, all fertile females from conception to viablity could be charged with murder for aborting..

I do in fact claim that abortion is murder, it being incontrovertible that the procedure is the deliberate taking of a human life without the justification of self-defense.

You are begging the question that the mothers non-viable baby has inalienable rights, separate from its mother. They cannot be separated. Thus, the mothers rights are inalienable.

First you will need to establish that viability is a necessary precondition to the inalienable rights of a human being. I agree that the mother's rights are inalienable. I assert that the baby, viable or not, also has inalienable rights, based on its humanity, and the acknowledgment that human beings have inalienable rights.

Also, outside the Hobbesian state of war, the rights of every human being are bounded by the equal rights of every other human being. Thus my right to life is preconditioned on the relinquishment of any claim to take your life, and vice versa, or we do end up in fact in the Hobbesian state of war.

"I continue, that the right to life compels others not to perform any act intended to end a human life other than in the context of a Hobbesian state of war." [thoughtomator]

Defense of your own life and body is not anarchy, -- "a Hobbesian state of war".

This is true, but this is the definition of self-defense. A child is in the overwhelming majority of cases not a threat to the life of the mother. I will grant that if the threat to the life of the mother were certain, or nearly so, then abortion could be countenanced on that basis.

"Thus, if there is to be any respect for the right to life, it is therefore necessary to compel individuals to respect that right,..." [thoughtomator]

Hobson's choice. A dilemma.. How to "compel" liberty? I choose the womans freedom over a states compulsory 'laws'.. In fact, I contend the state has been given no power to compel in this issue.

A person's freedoms are limited by the equal freedoms of others. Thus, as I have no right to take your life, a mother has no right to take her child's. If I did have the right to take your life, the reverse would be true, and neither of us would have actual liberty, but rather would be reverted to the state of war. The state not only has the power to prohibit (not compel - no action is being compelled) in this case, but the responsibility to do so, as the legitimate arbitrator of disputes between where one man's rights begin and his neighbor's end. Just as the law can justly prohbit me from murdering you, the law can justly prohibit a woman from murdering her child.

Before viablity, abortion is not a criminal act.

It is not technically criminal while the law permits it; although the legitimacy of the current law is highly dubious (SCOTUS legislating through Roe v. Wade and others). It is morally criminal because it is murder.

With respect to the term 'viability', I request a definition, as the term can be highly subjective.

Free people cannot countenace governmental powers that intrude upon an individuals life & liberty to this extent. The enforcement of such prohibitory laws violate our basic constitutional principles.

Prohibition of abortion does not intrude upon an individual's right to life, excepting the above noted case where the pregnancy constitutes a certain threat to the mother's life, in which case she may kill it on self-defense grounds, tragic as that may be. As far as the intrusion upon liberty, as you phrase it, I see no intrusion on any valid liberty. No man has liberty to murder another man. No libertarian defines liberty as freedom to murder. The defense of liberty is in fact the only legitimate grounds under which a government can prohibit, as it is the reason why government is instituted among free men in the first place; thus it may legitimately prohibit murder, theft, and torture.

If you feel a basic Constitutional principle is contradicted here, tell me explicitly what principle that is and how it is derived.

I find your case more authoritarian than libertarian.

Authoritarian means relying upon an authority, without question. Far from relying on any authority without question, the principles of inalienable rights are empirically provable. It is no more authoritarian to accept the right to life as truth than it is to accept the law of gravity as truth. Thus, the defense of the right to life, foremost among liberties, is fundamentally and inherently libertarian.

I would appreciate it, should you feel compelled to label my point of view, that you use accurate language to do so.