the NAP is very clearly defined as being relevant only to individuals capable of reasoning.
Discussion
I happen to believe that those who are most incapable of reasoning are the ones most susceptible to violence--and thus the NAP applies perhaps even more so to them. The strong should protect the weak--not unperson them.
Perhaps I've misunderstood your meaning.
Does this mean that the NAP implies one should be a vegan?
If you don't think so, then you understand my meaning.
If the party in question is incapable of reason, persuasion, argumentation (fish, tree, blob of cells with no brain, etc.), the NAP doesn't apply. Maybe something else applies, but the NAP doesn't.
No, the NAP apples to human persons as human persons: 1) to quote Rothbard, "The animals may have rights when they petition for them"; and 2) to quote that other eminent philosopher, Dr. Suess, "a person's a person, no matter how small." "Object permanence" is a very early stage of childhood development that a lot of pro-"choice"-ers seem to have missed: just because you cannot see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Peek-a-boo! ;-)
Surely you don't mean that we can aggress against the mentally handicapped with impunity? Who gets to define the line between the capable and the incapable? Because, honstly, that last sentence reads like it's on a trajectory toward "useless eaters" having to "justify their existence" to the deciders - a la [George Bernard Shaw](https://www.bitchute.com/video/PK53hCbuScna/). Surely, you don't mean that?
If you want to use that Rothbard quote, fine. So, can a single cell petition for rights?
Same for the Seuss quote: is a single cell a person? is every one of my cells a person? are my sperms millions of people?
Well, as I hope you are aware...a sperm is only one half of a human person, so no. Surely you know that people like me argue that human life begins at conception.
But a human is a human, no matter how small. And the smaller they are, the more in need of protection. On this point, I will not negotiate. Human dignity -- the dignity of each, individual person -- is one of the wonderful side effects of believing that we are made in the image of God.
I'm trying not to presume **too much** about "people like you", as you're not a monoculture / hivemind, I would hope.
do you think you can make the case that human life begins at conception without involving any religious or supernatural concepts?
Ruling out those relevant facts of our existence is arbitrary, but sure, I'll give it a try.
The very word 'conception' means beginning. What is it the _beginning_ of? If left to follow its natural course, what will it become? Whatever it will be, it began to be that, at its _conception_.
If it's not alive, then why is it growing (metabolizing, etc.)?
If it's not a human, then what is it?
If it's not OK to murder (otherwise innocent) living humans outside the womb, how is it somehow OK to kill this (otherwise innocent) living human inside the womb?