Comment: Again, a central theme of

Again, a central theme of this "liberty movement" is that nobody has the right to live at the expense of another.

They say we have no right to free health care, or food stamps, or welfare, or tax subsidies, because it is sustenance forcibly taken from others.

Does it not seem hypocritical to say that nobody has a right to live at the expense of another, even if it means that person will starve to death, yet for some reason we make an exception where a fetus is concerned?

The most important life here, again, is the life of the woman. The fetus survives by her choice and consent. Without her consent, that fetus is a parasite, even a criminal by their logic. The only just remedy is that without her consent, the pregnancy must be terminated.

The only point to be argued within this context is whether the fetus should be removed in a manner that does not damage it, allowing it to die merely by lack of support, or whether physically destroying it to remove it is or should be allowed. Even that is pointless to argue, as the result is always the same; the fetus dies.

Within this community, people generally agree that if someone breaks into your house and steals from you, you should be allowed to use force against him to protect what is yours. What makes a fetus any different?