[tpaine]

thoughtomator - "Ending slavery was most certainly worth shedding blood to do"

JohnGalt - This line jumps out of me as it violates the libertarian non-violence principle.

---

The "non-violence" principle is just the moral decision to not infringe upon the Rights of others. It does not preclude violent defence of ourselves, our loved ones, our property, neighborhood, State, or nation.
-exodus-

---

"It does not preclude violent defence of ourselves, our loved ones," --
Indeed it does not, and it would apply in this circumstance, imo:

-- My wife & I decide to abort her just discovered pregnancy. As we prepare to do so, the police enter our home to prevent us from doing so under our States new 'anti-abortion amendment'.

Do we have a right of self defence in this instance?

[JohnGalt]

There is no right of self-defense in the sense one can discern some universal truth from your scenario.

If the couple goes on trial and claims self-defense, it will be up to their peers to determine whether the community will accept that argument and determine whether the state will punish or not punish.

Why not use a two-year old as an example? Why does it have to be a question of in utero?

[exodus]

My wife & I decide to abort her just discovered pregnancy. As we prepare to do so, the police enter our home to prevent us from doing so under our State's new 'anti-abortion amendment'.

Do we have a right of self defence in this instance?
*********************

Of course.

You have the Right of Self-defense even while you're breaking the law.

[thoughtomator]

The condition on which your rights may not be infringed is your willingness to respect the equal rights of others. If you deny a brand-new human being his or her right to life, what claim do you have to have your own right to life respected? Killing the child forfeits the obligation of others not to infringe your own rights.