[Architect]

That's all fine, if you're talking about credit card debt. Murder is something different.

I've already established that you are wrong to say that the market only protects people who have hired defense companies.

Now. Let's address the question of women who murder their unborn babies (and I concede nothing about what it is. Unlike Rothbard, I recognize that murder is murder). You tell me. What penalty do you advocate for their actions? Death?

And how do you answer Bob Lallier's objections here?

To wit:

"To violate this right of individual sovereignty opens many fearsome Pandora’s boxes. For one example, if abortion is homicide then innocent women who have suffered miscarriages can be hunted down by the state and hustled off to gynecologists and investigated as possible crime scenes...A state that can define its jurisdiction so as to include the insides of our very bodies will leave absolutely no room left for any individual humanity at all. Such a state will not be above dictating the genetic engineering of people to make them more ‘fetus friendly’ in the interest of protecting "our" little "proto-citizens." Believe me, even Catholics do not want to go there..."

[A.J.Armitage]

I've already established that you are wrong to say that the market only protects people who have hired defense companies.

No, you haven't. The dire threat that a murderer will be snubbed at a church pot-luck isn't my idea of protection, and there's no point in pretending credit card companies, or whoever, will avoid business with people who had abortions; even if a very few do, it's hardly enough to be any any real form of "protection". And in any event, the non-paying debter is known to the creditor. This is not necessarily the case with a violent crime such as abortion; the guilty party might remain unknown. The two situations are different.

Now. Let's address the question of women who murder their unborn babies (and I concede nothing about what it is. Unlike Rothbard, I recognize that murder is murder). You tell me. What penalty do you advocate for their actions? Death?

Probably for abortionists. I don't know about the mothers, but there has to be a penalty.

And how do you answer Bob Lallier's objections here?

Inside the mother's body or not, the fact remains that the issue is the baby's body. Aggression doesn't suddenly become a right because of where it happens to be. If it does, why the body, in particular? Why not property in general? If I own land, it's mine just as much as my body is.

Government jurisdiction isn't determined by location (speaking here of government in general, not any particular government), but by the nature of the acts involved, which is why his later objections are mistaken. If banning the initiation of force somehow leads to required genetic engineering, why not genetic engineering to make people more "non-fetus friendly"? If you've already granted jurisdiction over your relations with others, why not?

[Snuffington]

And how do you answer Bob Lallier's objections here?

Bob Lallier apparently never cracked a history book covering the period before Roe vs. Wade. In virtually the entire history of this country, abortion was illegal. Our history has already proven illegal abortion does not open such a Pandora's box.

Lallier's essential argument boils down to reserving the protection of the state only to those whom it is convenient to protect, allegedly out of fear law enforcement might go crazy. The obvious answer is to reign in the scope of law enforcement back to its constitutional limits. Just like any crime, the burden of proof is on the accuser, and the accused has rights that must be respected.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Let's address the question of women who murder their unborn babies (and I concede nothing about what it is. Unlike Rothbard, I recognize that murder is murder). You tell me. What penalty do you advocate for their actions? Death?

For the actual murderer (the abortionist), the penalty must be Death. (Genesis 9:6)

For the complicit accessory (the aborting woman), penalty might vary dependent upon mitigating factors.

And how do you answer Bob Lallier's objections here? To wit: "To violate this right of individual sovereignty opens many fearsome Pandora’s boxes. For one example, if abortion is homicide then innocent women who have suffered miscarriages can be hunted down by the state and hustled off to gynecologists and investigated as possible crime scenes...A state that can define its jurisdiction so as to include the insides of our very bodies will leave absolutely no room left for any individual humanity at all. Such a state will not be above dictating the genetic engineering of people to make them more ‘fetus friendly’ in the interest of protecting "our" little "proto-citizens." Believe me, even Catholics do not want to go there..."

At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. -- Deuteronomy 17:6

An "empty womb" is not a "witness" to the act of murder.

Two witnesses are required.

False Witness in matters of Capital Crime to be punished by Death.

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

The Bible authorizes the State to wield the Sword; and the Bible also so restrains the State's Use of the Sword as to answer Bob Lallier's objections.

The Bible has the answers.