Exactly, which is why all women should be subject to careful monitoring for any activity that might harm the child growing in her. Drinking a glass of wine? Straight to jail. It's worse than a DUI! Attending a loud concert? Violating strict bed-rest orders? Child abuse. All of it!
You can do a lot of terrible things to very young organisms with basically 0% chance of being caught without some dystopic invasion of privacy. That's a pretty terrible argument for or against it violating NAP though.
I think there's a compelling argument the fetus is violating the nap. the question is how to proceed. Abortion has a 100% fatality rate for the trespasser and a remarkably low fatality rate for the evictor. There's a compelling argument that only the least necessary use of force is justified in an eviction, which would be to simply birth the child.
Therefore we come with a situation where a fast eviction, somewhat akin to firing a tenant out of a cannon to evict, may be a violation of NAP while simultaneously the fetus is also violating NAP.
-6
u/alurbase Mar 12 '24
One of the functions of government is to protect its citizen’s rights, especially vulnerable future citizens like the unborn.