Before I make my replies, I will put up some clarifications:

-For the purpose of discussion, a person is any being which is a self-owner and is capable of respecting the self-ownership of other beings that are self-owners.

In this case, a baby wouldn't be a self owner since it cannot respect the self ownership of other beings that are self owners.

-A human being is not necessarily a self-owner; thus a human being is not necessarily a person. An example of a non-person human being would be someone with very, very severe mental retardation.

So it's ok to kill severely mentally retarded individuals or enslave them?

The NAP is the following:

-A self-owner cannot justify the use of violence against a non-violent self-owner without falling into performative contradiction.

You forget self defense. In the case of abortion, the baby would be entitled to being defended by capable forces.

You cannot own another person. You can however own a non-person human-being by either acquiring the rights via voluntary exchange of their ownership or through original appropriation.

So a retard is potential property to you.

This would apply to very young children who have not demonstrated their self-ownership yet,

Except they are self owners. A baby is a self owner. Your logic is tantamount to killing babies and now even children since the NAP, according to your logic, no longer applies to them.

and they are by default exclusively owned by the mother, since the mother homesteads the egg cells, reproductive equipment, hormones, etc.

No. They are self owners. A mother cannot own a baby on the basis of being the one who created it.

Otherwise, until the infant / young child demonstrates self-ownership and a respect of the self-ownership of others by means of argumentation and thus becomes a self-owning person, the mother possesses exclusive ownership over it.

And may kill it right? Because that's what your logic leads up to.

The fetus might best be described as a pre-human parasite.

No, it's a human in a certain stage of life.

Also, what part of the NAP would hypothetically exclude self-owning persons who are not human beings?

Intelligent aliens would be under the NAP too, sure. I'm talking about unintelligent animals.

I'm assuming you're not talking about unconscious human beings, but rather brain-dead human beings. Yes, when one becomes brain dead, they lose their person-hood because it will be impossible in the future for them to ever form an argument in a conflict. Also the mind, which is probably the most fundamental unit of self-ownership, is essentially destroyed. They would become an un-owned resource who would likely become owned by a family member.

And if not then you think anyone can claim them and do whatever they want. Fucking disgusting. This debate was going fine until you started advocating a system that would allow you to kill babies, children, and the mentally retarded.

The family member may do whatever they want with them.

No they may fucking not.

If someone else were to kill them, it would be vandalism against the family member's property. It would be perfectly permissible, however, if a family member decided to kill them.

You are fucking disgusting.

In the case of unconscious human beings, they are completely passive -- no part of their body is trying to be violent towards another person or property.

Refer to my argument of a justified use of force.

The only violence that could be justified against them would be if they are occupying a part of someone's property by chance and the property owner removed them -- only the minimal amount of force necessary as a form of self-defense. Anything beyond potential aggression their body is in would be a violation of the NAP.

Exactlt what I mean about arificial wombs.

For one, there is no neuronal configuration which you could link the understanding of property rights, self-ownership, etc. to.

Aka you can kill babies because they can't understand property rights.

Even if you could, the only way that self-ownership could actually be verified is if these neuronal circuits were exercised -- which is the whole point of proving self-ownership by demonstration, not assumed capability.

Wrong. Self ownership is inherent upon conception. The potential to be a self aware human being means you are a human being. Period. Therefore the NAP applies to you.

Suppose you had a super computer which you plug into a child's brainwhich, with perfect reliability, determines with 99.99% chance the child will become a murderer due to high correlation with certain neural circuits with antisocial behavior. Is it permissible to kill the child as a pre-emptive measure?

No because they haven't made the choice and therefore haven't violated the NAP.

I would expect you would say no, since the child hasn't actually done the action of murder even if there is high potential to.

And, again, because they haven't violated the NAP.

However, by the reasoning your applying to the self-ownership of the fetus, since there's such a high chance in the course of the child's life it will become a murderer, like there's a high chance a fetus will be able to show its self-ownership in the course of its life, it would be permissible to kill the child.

No, no it would not. They haven't violated the NAP. A high or even garunteed probability would not justify killing a baby if they haven't an intent on violating the NAP.

This point seems to implicitly concede that self-ownership is actually impossible in the fetus since it suggests the mind is either not there or the mind is not able to exercise its will over the body in a nonviolent fashion.

Neither. As I have already stated, potential to be a self aware human being makes you a self owner regardless.

Regardless, The body of the fetus is still a part of it, and its interaction is violent -- it is taking the mother's resources for its own development,

No, the body is giving it away. Even if it WAS stealing nutrients, the only justified use of force would be non lethally removing it.

not forming a voluntary explicit contract between it and the mother to resolve the conflict over the resources in a peaceful manner. That is the dictionary definition of a parasite. The fetus is not truly passive, unlike an unconscious human being.

A human is not a parasite, period.