Murray Rothbard on Abortion

Rothbard argued that:

1. A woman owns her own body and has the right to decide what happens within it. Based on this principle, Rothbard contended that abortion is justified because a fetus does not have the right to use a woman’s body against her will. He viewed a fetus as an “invader” if it is unwanted by the mother.
2. Rothbard asserted that individuals are not morally or legally obligated to sustain the lives of others, even if doing so involves their own resources. This extends to the relationship between a pregnant woman and a fetus; a woman is not obligated to maintain a pregnancy if she chooses not to.
3. Some critics argue that voluntary sex implies a “contractual” obligation to carry a pregnancy to term. Rothbard rejected this idea, asserting that obligations must be explicitly agreed upon to have moral or legal force. Voluntary sex, in his view, does not create such a contract, nor does it grant the fetus enforceable rights over the woman’s body.
4. Rothbard drew an analogy to trespassing: if someone is on your property without permission (even unintentionally), you have the right to remove them, even if their removal causes harm.

I’m not saying I agree with this stance, but it is interesting

What do you guys think?

My counter-argument: But doesn’t the NAP also teach that the minimum amount of force should be used to remove them if they are unwanted? Doesn’t using lethal force seem overkill for a fetus that didn’t even choose to be there and cannot leave?

My counter-counter-argument: The problem is, there isn’t usually a less forceful option that could be used to remove the unwanted fetus. If in the future, artificial wombs become accessible, this might become the method of least force.