If this is the basis, why are the laws aimed at criminalizing abortion essentially blanket bans with narrow exceptions rather than based around medical judgement that's equitable between both parties? For example Texas's only viability test is the presence of a periodic electric signal, rather than any consideration of whether the fetus even has the right number of chromosomes.
Additionally, even a fetus that seemingly will be eventually viable isn't actually viable for the first few months. From a libertarian perspective, while arguments exist that the mother has consented to this responsibility for some cases, in other cases she has not (eg rape).
(Also FWIW your example of an ectopic pregnancy example doesn't actually meet the criteria of "growing where a baby would")
> why are the laws aimed at criminalizing abortion essentially blanket bans with narrow exceptions rather than based around medical judgement that's equitable between both parties
Because then would-be abortants would simply find a doctor who would sign the correct paperwork. Duh.
> whether the fetus even has the right number of chromosomes.
So you support eugenics?
> From a libertarian perspective, while arguments exist that the mother has consented to this responsibility for some cases, in other cases she has not (eg rape).
Abortion, if the fetus is human, violates the non-aggression principle. From a humanist perspective, it wasn't the kid's fault.
> Because then would-be abortants would simply find a doctor who would sign the correct paperwork
That hypothetical doctor would be breaking the law by falsifying paperwork, and could be prosecuted for that. It seems you're arguing that it's necessary for the law to overbearingly criminalize related just behavior (and in this case medically prudent behavior), because of the possibility that law breaking could be fraudulently hidden. I don't buy that sort of argument.
> So you support eugenics?
Do you have a larger point here, or is equating the acknowledgement of chromosomal abnormalities that are ultimately incompatible with life as "eugenics" just meant to be a rhetorical cheap shot?
> Abortion, if the fetus is human, violates the non-aggression principle
By the usual framing of the non-aggression principle, I don't see how. Would you say a landlord evicting a tenant violates the non-aggression principle?
HIPAA already includes exceptions for law enforcement, and the new law itself could certainly mandate some new monitoring and compliance checks. This argument just feels like doubling down on the previous unsupported rationale.
> Depends if you're talking about Down's and related disorders or not.
Since you're defending blanket bans, then it's sufficient to make my point on the most extreme least compatible with life conditions. Like say from a quick look, trisomy 8. "Warkany syndrome (trisomy 8) is a common cause of miscarriage and, for newborns who survive, death usually occurs within the first months". Or trisomy 16. "Full trisomy 16 is incompatible with life. While most fetuses are spontaneously aborted by the 12th week of pregnancy, a few have survived into the second trimester". But in general I don't think knowingly bringing a child with Down's syndrome into the world is kind, compassionate, or worthwhile either.
> Of course not, eviction is a possible outcome of the contract between the two parties.
That only works for tenants over 18 who've signed the lease contract, and not for say their minor children or subletees. But sure, getting the contract out of the picture entirely - would you say that a landlord evicting a squatter violates the non-aggression principle?
Additionally, even a fetus that seemingly will be eventually viable isn't actually viable for the first few months. From a libertarian perspective, while arguments exist that the mother has consented to this responsibility for some cases, in other cases she has not (eg rape).
(Also FWIW your example of an ectopic pregnancy example doesn't actually meet the criteria of "growing where a baby would")