the baby has a choice in whether or not to invade his/her mother's innards. By that same token, a person could carry that kind of reasoning to its logical conclusion that a mother should not be required by law to feed to take care of her newborn baby. After all, a baby can't make a contract with the mother, stipulating that the mother must take care of him. Furthermore, the newborn baby was brought into the mother's home, most of the time by her own choice, therefore she should be allowed to expel the baby out of her home when she so chooses by whatever means she chooses. Rothbard didn't even attempt to discredit the claim that fetuses are live, human beings. He instead tried to make the ridiculous ASSumption that a baby has no right to invade the privacy of his mother's womb without her consent. Again that's like a mother being allowed to legally chop off her baby's head and throw the "parasite" into the dumpster under the pretext that the baby was invading the privacy of her home without her consent.