Wait a minute there! There's no comparison between communism and being protected from murder. You're misusing the term "protection" here.
WRT babies and other defenseless people, my first point would be: are they protected now? Surely the position of the Libertarian Party - return the issue to the states - is superior to that of the supposedly anti-abortion Republican Party - which is to betray their supporters. Returning the issue to the states is the first step towards establishing a free market in abortion policy.
Turning the issue over to the states still leaves you with a government, not anarchy. I agree about the Republican party on abortion, and certainly Roe vs. Wade needs to be overturned, which would return it to the states, but an amandment might ultimately be a good idea.
A free market in policy isn't a good idea, and anarcho-capitalism couldn't bring it about without permanent warfare. You'd have the problem of people paying agencies to punish whatever they wanted.
More importantly, the market protects the defenceless too. Rothbard and Hoppe are wrong to continually talk about defence companies. They are obviously an integral part of the Natural Order but the first line of defence to wrongdoing is not hired hands. Rather it is ostracism. If I renege on a debt to my credit card company, the company wont normally sue me in court. Instead they will put a black mark against my name and I will find that honest merchants will cease to give me credit or to deal with me in any way with other than cash. Eventually, I will give in, right the wrong I caused, and I will be re-instated in polite society. No government. No punishment (why do you insist on that anyway?). Just quiet resolution of the wrong inflicted and restitution thereof.
That's all fine, if you're talking about credit card debt. Murder is something different.
In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard disgustingly refers to a foetus as an intruder in its mother's body and claims that she has the right to expel the intruder. Well, in some absolute sense, he is right. It is her body and she reigns supreme over it. OTOH, killing someone else because he inconveniences you is evil. Rothbard forgot the second half of the equation. The answer is not to jail her (and historically women were never jailed for murder do you really want them to be?) but to denounce her actions as evil and humiliate her in polite company.
I don't think Rothbard is right about that at all. If the baby intruded into her mother, at what point did the intrusion happen? At or before conception? No, she didn't exist yet. After conception? No, she's already there. The baby had no choice in the matter. The issue isn't the mother's body, it's the baby's body (and you do admit here that the baby is a person). As I said before, when it's killing someone, shunning doesn't cut it.
One last point. Do you really want to trust government to protect your rights? Didn't work well for the Trabant drivers. Nor, for that matter, for the children stolen by the CPS.
That depends on the government. The communist governments weren't trying to defend rights in the first place. They had other, evil goals. The CPS is abusive and needs to be restrained if not abolished, but being against abortion doesn't mean supporting everything alledgedly done "for the children". In fact, most people who do things "for the children" want abortion to be legal.
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 violate this right of individual sovereignty opens many fearsome Pandoras 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..."