Evictionism: Abortion and Libertarianism (Walter Block)

[Jingles2423x]

This is the only via of abortion that makes sense to me. I've always understood both side to argument, but this is what makes sense to me hearing Dr. Block explain it.

[PigeonTech]

Maybe I glossed over it, but I'm not sure Evictionism solves the question of whether or not a zygote equals a person with the same rights of existing people. Nobody agrees on that premise, and it's the basis of everyone's views. Whether or not it's a person (and not just living cells with potential) is what determines if it's murder or not. One view is that it's a person as soon as meiosis starts, and the other view is that it doesn't make sense for a nonviable zygote to have personhood.

[jerryvalez]

I would say I am one of the few market anarchists who is pro-life. To those who would say a fetus cannot survive without the mother, I would say that is true of small children, the elderly, and people with mental and/or physical impairments. In all the cases their is usually a caretaker, (though not always) and there is certainly a caretaker in the case of the fetus/mother relationship. Adult women know the risks of having sex. That said, it is a difficult issue for libertarians, for both sides

[Conza88]

rte.ie/news/2007/0220/baby.htm­l (completely validates Blocks medical point)

[MrAbolitionist]

"there's no right to life" uh what? I'm pretty sure that the non-aggression axiom includes not initiating homicide. Also the first inalienable right mentioned by both Locke and Jefferson is the right to life. 

[mikemat3307]

@MrAbolitionist Technically, there is no right to life, only a right to not be aggressed against. 

[natritious1]

@MrAbolitionist If you're on my property and wont leave, say goodnite sucker :0

[MrAbolitionist]

@natritious1 what if someone puts a newborn on your property? and they obviously lack the mental compatibly to know to leave. Also the fetus was placed in his or her mother's womb by outside forces, not his or her will. Saying that a fetus is an aggressor is like saying a kidnapped victim is breaking and entering.

[natritious1]

@MrAbolitionist good point!

[simplulo]

I use the landlord-tenant analogy all the time. My landlord does indeed own my apartment, but he cannot evict me without good cause until the end of our lease. I would say that during the first trimester an embryo is clearly not a life (otherwise an unwitting pregnant woman could be tried for manslaughter for drinking alcohol), but afterwards a woman has voluntarily signed a contract to share her uterus for 6 more months. Yes, her body is her property, and she is free to obligate it.

[mikemat3307]

@simplulo Contracts are only valid when both parties agree. How can a fetus agree to a contract? What are the terms and provisions of that contract? Can the fetus negotiate terms? Can someone, anyone be forced to adhere to the terms of a contract, or can one only seek damages after a violation of the contract occurs?

[irvnz]

i have always wondered why men seem to be so vocal about something they'll never experience -- not unlike pregnancy, it is perfect for a true academic procedure for armchair women, aka men.

"Evictionism" is a 70s doctrine when everyone & their brother of a libertarian bent wanted to justify or reject every aspect of of someone else's life, forgetting living is a co-requisite for life

[TakisAthensGr]

I shall submit 3 points that almost all libertarians omit.

1. An action of eviction is only legal when the ownership is being violated by someone else. This doesn't apply when the owner impels of coerces the "violator" to do so.

2. Conception is an action that coerces umbilical addiction, so that in legal terms the rectification must be to end that kind of addiction.

3. The embryo doesn't belong to the mother so that abortion violates the right of ownership or future custody of the father.

[MrAbolitionist]

What Pro-Life says is that you can't initiate aggression against the fetus. That is perfectly in line with the non-aggression axiom.

[poppiedree]

this is really badly reasoned through. I hear a lot of Thomson, some sketchy intuition pumps involving drowning and coffee: interested people, please read well argumented articles, instead of some roller-coaster hybrid of them all combined. If anyone is in need for options, without particular pro or contra interests, please contact me and I can recommend or offer feedback on things I read for medical ethics in university on the subject of abortion.

[richardcadbury]

This is very sketchy...

[Coonstev]

I disagree with the "pushing into the water" analogy. In the analogy, water represents a hostile environment not suitable to sustain adult human life: a grown adult will drown in water. For an adult air and earth represent conditions suitable to sustain life, but this environment is wholly unsuitable to the fetus. For the fetus, the womb is the ideal environment and the afterbirth is a hostile environment. To the fetus, it isn't better to be born for a little while and face threat of death.

[verymaddog]

Block's is probably trying to please both pro-freedom and pro-slavery 'libertarians' and failing.

Killing is morally wrong - at least that's what libertarians believe. From the moral fact that killing people is wrong it follows that there's such a thing as a right to life.

Why doesn't Block want to shoot a person who enters 'his property' if he doesn't believe in a right to life?

And NAP does not stand for 'right to alienable property' - rather, property rights FOLLOW from the NAP.

[zeo285]

I think you've misunderstood libertarianism

It is morally wrong to kill becouse everybody own their own life, it is the person's property.

And libertarianism is based private property rights.

Now taking away some's life is justifided in cases of self defence, we are not pacifist.

Inshort, Killing is not morally wrong, if a person is himself gulity of murder, then it would be justified in killing him.

There is not right to life, only private property rights.

[verymaddog]

@zeo285 No, YOU misunderstood libertarianism. Property rights area consequence of the NAP, not the other way around.

[wood9670]

@zeo285, do libertarians support child support?

[zeo285]

You mean when parents get devorced, and the Father gives money to the mother?

If its voluntary, Sure! But if some court dicides that he shall pay her, No.

But if a marrige contract says that "In the case of devorice, ___ shall pay___" Well thats a contract and contracts should be enforced.

[Porojukaha]

@zeo285 then you sir, are not a libertarian.

[mcc1789]

@zeo285 So if there's no contract, the mother cannot sue the father for child-raising costs?

[Porojukaha]

@zeo285 i think that YOU misunderstand libertarianism. Libertarianism definitly respects a right to life. A baby is NOT a womans property. It is the babies property. Once a woman is pregnant there are two completely separate living organisms. Look at it this way. were the mother to die would the fetus survive for a few seconds? yes, because it is not the mother. It is a separate biological entity that relies on the mother. Killing it IS murder there is no question about that.

[Nulono]

@zeo285 Actually, YOU're the one who's misunderstood Libertarianism. NAP is the non-aggression principle, which is violated when a child is killed through abortion.

[tasteslikechimp]

@zeo285 I don't think the death penalty can be accurately described as self-defense. If someone is threatening imminent harm, sure. But if they're a captive, or as in Block's example they're on your property but don't pose an imminent threat, use of lethal force on your part would be offensive rather than defensive. Likewise, defense of property is not self-defense. If it was, I could shoot you for leaning on my car in a parking lot.

[rrp1973]

I always understood the womens right to say "I don't want this thing in MY body, take it out." But why the obsession with killing that thing. Why go in and tear it to pieces, I like Blocks position here. Where it may get tricky is if removing a whole fetus presents risks to the mother that could be mitigated by taking it out in pieces.

Our options appear to be allowing the fetus to squirm and dye slowly on the table or killing it while inside the mother and avoiding the emotional discomfort.

[murphycline]

It's nice to know that with medical advances this will eventually become a non-issue.

[AubreyHerbert]

This is epic.