"Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion. The Catholic antiabortionist, for example, declares that all that he wants for the fetus is the rights of any human being—i.e., the right not to be murdered. But there is more involved here, and this is the crucial consideration. If we are to treat the fetus as having the same rights as humans, then let us ask: What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being’s body? This is the nub of the issue: the absolute right of every person and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body." -- Murray Rothbard, "For a New LIberty", p. 131

I tend to agree in part with rothbard but that is irrelevant, as libertarians don't do the ipse dixit. There is no libertarian bible, there is no superior authority to refer to, the concept itself is inimical to libertarianism.

The parasite part is arguable because the parasite didn't choose to become one, rather exists only because of your choices.

And you are fully responsible for the consequences of your choices in libertarianism.

At most the parasite argument can work to claim that libertarians should always accept abortion in case of rape (and I agree with that).

But it's not parasite if you put that there by your own volition

It's not an unwanted invader if the mother wasn't raped, rather a tenant, and you signed the contract when you had voluntary sex

If it's murder if the sex is voluntary, it's murder if the woman was raped.

If it isn't murder, why the hell is this even a discussion?

You're gonna have to pick a lane on this.

It's not about murder rather illegitimate occupation of private body parts.

Because under libertarianism you can murder occupants of your property and it's fully moral

I have difficulty considering a cell without a conscious or a brain as equal as a human being.
I think a human is smarter and worth more then a brainless cell .

But since many maga have barely half a brain I understand their reticence about abortion

A majority of republican voters agree with first trimester abortion

So a cell without a brain has as much value as a full grown human and a human life has less value then a property .

That’s great .

That pretty much why I’m not sure your pov should be retain to correctly evaluating human life worth ….

Especially when its a property/terrain that could be worth only couple thousand dollars…

Not anymore .
Those Republican got eradicated by maga .
They called rino now .

Read again.

Can you follow what actually happens?

Kansas voted 56 to 41 for Trump v Biden in 2020.

Kansas voted 59 to 41 in 2022 against a complex proposition that basically claimed there is absolutely no (state) constitutional right to abortion in any case and it's all up to the legislature

Rino aren’t represent only in 1 state .
Will see how it goes in couple of months .

Are we sure murder means what you think it means?

Killing in the act of self-defense is literally not murder.

That’s just semantic , the end result is termination nonetheless

It's not semantics. There are existential ramifications for what's justifiable and what isn't. What is passable and what's worthy for restoration/retribution.

Murder is explicitly an unlawful homicide, according to Barron's.

Yes .
Still an homicide .
Semantic .

If a state with capital punishment execute someone it still a « murder/homicide » even tho it’s been judged to « deserve » it through legal means .

No I am not, what I mean is that killing human beings is fully morally justified in libertarianism when there is any NAP violation.

Not only justified but strongly encouraged I would say

Not all homicides are murder, though. This isn't playing semantics.

If you're a pacifist, fine. Be a pacifist and die on that hill.

I'm not gonna say there's no such thing as the justifiable killing of another person, though.

That said, should any killer be strictly scrutinized? Of course, but it's on the state to justify the use of force to detain them and punish them by proving that there was no reasonably perceived imminent threat to life.

Property is a gray area, confessedly so. Personally, I'm uncomfortable with a threat to property justifying the killing of someone. It's disproportionate and largely pointless in a society where everything is insured up the ass.

My point to Luciom is that abortion is either unjustifiably taking a life or it isn't. The circumstances of rape don't change the personhood status of the embryo/fetus.

But a woman owns her body in libertarianism. Not any other human (even if we're going to treat life as beginning at conception) is entitled to feed on her body and forcibly distort it, let alone make her a parent.

If she chose voluntarily to put a human in who depends on her she can't change her mind, that's the idea. Or at least, that's why the idea is debatable under libertarianism.

The person didn't come by force, she put the person there

My point to you is that under libertarianism you can morally kill people in some cases, so your idea is wrong.

There is the topic of when the fetus becomes a life, and then the topic of the woman body.

Even if the fetus is a person to whom NAP applies, if the woman didn't voluntarily accept to get that person inside, removing trespassers is morally acceptable for libertarians.

Problema arise when the fetus is considered a person, and the woman voluntarily accepted that person in (voluntarily acted in a way that allowed the person in).

If I open my house door and tell people they can come on of they want, I can't kill them for trespassing in libertarianism

Well a brainless cell should be considered as equal as u then ?
Really ?
Because the way u speak is no abortion is acceptable at any term limit ….

FWIW I would save 1 full grown baby first before 2 embryo in a bottle ….

Man I am personally ok with first trimester abortion. We are trying to discuss what people affiliated with the libertarian party think and why.

Some people, libertarian or not, think from conception on, being human DNA, they are a person.

And then there is the rape thing which is a different discourse.