>>73991
>Her rights are not superseded by the fact that there is a fetus inside her.
Except they are, we've already operated and agreed on two propositions. The first of which being that the fetus doesn't choose to grow inside the womb and that it is ultimately a product of actions the woman pursued. That is to say that this woman has given the child life, to kill it is to end another human being's life, deride him of ownership of his own body despite her actions which bring the fetus into existence in the first place. Once a woman is pregnant her body ultimately supplies two organism, the first is herself and the other is the fetus. The child's right to life is ultimately just as valid as the mothers by way of her own actions.
>' this is an attack on property in general.
It's not an attack on property, it's just an observation that ultimately understands that the fetus (which yet again was ideally brought to existence by the mother's tuition) cannot exist, nor survive without being inherently bonded with the mother in order to fully develop. Due to the decision of the mother to have sex and have a child, the child inherently due to the very way it exist, has a right to the mother's resources.
>Whether what they decide to do with their body is right or wrong is not a Libertarian discussion but a moral discussion to be decided by the individual
This is a sort of very odd point, because the whole conversation had here is ultimately one of property rights and ethics. It's not simply "up to the individual", otherwise murder would be justified in cases where it logically isn't.
>Second your question implies that some force was used against a child in order to starve it, not a lack of action.
I also stated that there's the possibility they could have even forgot, but it's irrelevant because ultimately the result is the same whichever-way the knife cuts. The child ultimately dies, and clearly there is someone at fault here: the parents.
>By the way you phrase it you already set it up as an act of aggression, which isn't applicable, I think, to the situation of a child in the womb.
It is quite applicable. Do the couple not have a complete right over their property? Then they can theoretically choose to just not feed the child, afterall it's THEIR money, their food and ultimately their labor which gets them both. In the same way that the mother owns her body and the resources that are ultimately given to the child by the body to grow and develop.
>The right or wrongness about abortion is up to philosophers and theologians to decide but with regards to property rights its pretty cut and dry, I'd say.
Not quite, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Property rights are ultimately where "morality" as you use it come from, ergo this is a conversation we can have and it's not as "cut and dry" as you would think. It is a complex conversation but it's one that must be had.