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?
What is it Aaron? And why do you think that the murderers deserve less of a penalty than their accomplices?
Absolutely correct. Do you think that other people have the right to use your land against your will?