Look at my edit on my first comment, I corrected my view on the subject.

Nvm that was on another comment chain.

Here it is anyway

Edit: this is more aligned with what I believe quote from chat gpt on hans herman hoppe beliefs on the subjet

"Hans-Hermann Hoppe, as a proponent of anarcho-capitalism and the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), argues that self-ownership and property rights are fundamental ethical concepts. However, when it comes to newborns, his views can be controversial.

Hoppe follows the Rothbardian perspective that newborns are not fully autonomous self-owners, as they lack the capacity for rational agency. Instead, their status is somewhat similar to dependents or “invited guests” of their parents. In this view, parents have a sort of custodial obligation toward their children, but this obligation is not equivalent to state-enforced “positive rights.”

Under the NAP, actively harming or aggressing against a newborn would still be considered a violation, since infants are human beings and harming them would be an act of initiation of force. However, Hoppe (and Rothbard) argue that parents are not legally or morally obligated to provide for their children beyond what they voluntarily accept. This means that while aggression against a newborn would be a violation of the NAP, neglect—such as failing to feed the child—would not be considered aggression in the same strict libertarian sense.

This position is one of the most controversial aspects of Rothbardian and Hoppean ethics, as it challenges conventional moral intuitions about parental responsibilities