I've read from others there are issues with this (explanations forthcoming), but most of it looks pretty sound. Thoughts? I am very interested in where this argument goes. I've liked Block's evitictionism for it's practicality, but is that all it offers?
http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2010/lp-2-16.pdf
Skyler.
www.skylerjcollins.com www.libertysearch.info
Wisniewski's arguments sound pretty clear. E.R.Olovetto mentioned this uses a faulty analogy, though. I would be interested to hear him elaborating.
Abortion is thought of as a contest between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child. This is a mistake. The actual contest is between the mother and the father or whoever is advocating that the child be carried to term. It is just as much aggression to force a woman to bear a child she would rather not have inside of her body as it is against the child to abort it assuming that, ex post, it would not have wanted to be aborted were it allowed to live to the age where it could have a say in the matter.
After a certain point in the pregnancy, abortion only results in the death of the fetus as a matter of choice. This is where viability comes in. If the child is viable - meaning it would more likely live than die were it extracted in a non-destructive manner - then the choice of whether the child will be removed destructively or not may constitute aggression on the part of the mother against the interests of the father in the survival of his offspring. In this case, the father's right to petition that the child be removed in a non-destructive manner ought to be acknowledged (assuming he was aware of the pregnancy... another separate issue altogether). However, prior to the point of viability, there doesn't seem to be any way to balance the father's interests in his potential offspring's survival against the mother's interest in controlling her own body without violating the interests of one or the other. Since a mother's interest in materially controlling her own body clearly takes precedence over a father's interest in the survival of his offspring which she is carrying, the mother should have plenary power to decide to abort.
Similarly, issues of child rearing and abuse should be analyzed as disputes between the potential guardians of the child, not necessarily as disputes between the child itself and its custodian/guardian. This will permit social/legal norms regarding what is permissible treatment of children to emerge in a way that preserves the natural interests of parents and other biological relatives of children in the health and welfare of those children.
Clayton -
I'd be interested to see responses to this objection too. It is similar I think to my line of thinking on this, quote:
So the embryo is inside the mother's body but who put it there? Embryo did not do anything to get itself there. So it can not be an intruder. Lets imagine you offer a travelling person lodging for the night, but then you wake him up in the middle of it and throw him out in the rain. Would this traveller have the right to complain? I think he would. Of course you can say that it is not the same since the traveller was an invited guest whereas the embryo is "an accident". But is that really important? If you get drunk and damage somebodies property by accident then you have to pay the damages whether you intended to do this damage or not. It is now your obligation to the owner of that property. What is different in the case of conception? If you get drunk and accidentally invite an embryo into your body? Provided that embryo's self-ownership has been conceeded, what clears you of the obligation that you would have in the two other examples that I mentioned?
Lets imagine you offer a travelling person lodging for the night, but then you wake him up in the middle of it and throw him out in the rain. Would this traveller have the right to complain? I think he would.
Of course you can say that it is not the same since the traveller was an invited guest whereas the embryo is "an accident". But is that really important? If you get drunk and damage somebodies property by accident then you have to pay the damages whether you intended to do this damage or not. It is now your obligation to the owner of that property.
What is different in the case of conception? If you get drunk and accidentally invite an embryo into your body? Provided that embryo's self-ownership has been conceeded, what clears you of the obligation that you would have in the two other examples that I mentioned?
Generally speaking though I think evictionism is a big leap forward from Rothbard's fundamentalistic position on the issue.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
When I heard Block's eviction argument I couldn't believe it, it was a case of total idiocy. I've never understood why those who aren't bound by religeon have a problem in removing a bundle of cells (for about the first few weeks) and then a small growing creature with barly any brain activities whatsoever (which is what it is until about 5 months), after about this point I can understand why abortion may be considered an issue of any significance.
You're just a bundle of cells.
While I am Catholic and anti-abortion, if I became an atheist tomorrow I'd still be against abortion. The whole point is defining when personhood begins, and religion is not necessary to come to the conclusion that it is much earlier than you believe.
The Late Andrew Ryan:When I heard Block's eviction argument I couldn't believe it, it was a case of total idiocy. I've never understood why those who aren't bound by religeon have a problem in removing a bundle of cells (for about the first few weeks) and then a small growing creature with barly any brain activities whatsoever (which is what it is until about 5 months), after about this point I can understand why abortion may be considered an issue of any significance.
Wait, why couldn't you believe it? You didn't seem to explain why.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I'm vacationing the next 3 days but I will respond when I get home. For now people might want to review Block's actual position in this video.
The whole point is defining when [legal] personhood begins
The best answer is going to be our best answer to when biological personhood begins, which is conception. That isn't what this debate is about.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Typically people argue past one another on this issue. If the sides can't agree on when personhood begins there's certainly no point in arguing whether or not abortion should be legal. It's like arguing with someone that places the value of a panda bear level with a human.
I wrote a pretty lengthy piece addressing Blocks' stance on abortion and the eviction principle--linked below. I submitted it for publication through libertarian papers but was told it need some polish before acceptance.
http://jeremiahdyke.blogspot.com/2010/05/no-compromise-rejoinder-to-block-and.html
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
Actually the blog messed up its formatting, here is a better place to read the paper. http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/13817.aspx
@laminustacitus:
No, there is no contest between the rights of the mother and the fetus because the fetus is simply incapable of asserting its rights. The root problem is that the fetus cannot speak for itself, so we cannot know its wishes or desires. Instead, the fetus has advocates - its father or grandparents, etc. In the case of disputed abortion, these advocates are in a dispute with the mother, it is the mother who will be coerced if a ruling is in favor of the advocates of the fetus and it is these advocates who will be restrained - by force, if necessary - from coercing the mother to continue the pregnancy if a ruling is in her favor. In this regard, a fetus is in the same position as any other entity on behalf of which people want to advocate, such as an animal. Rothbard says of animal rights (Ethics of Liberty):
"There is, in fact, rough justice in the common quip that "we will recognize the rights of animals whenever they petition for them." The fact that animals can obviously not petition for their "rights" is part of their nature, and part of the reason why they are clearly not equivalent to, and do not possess the rights of, human being. And if it be protested that babies can't petition either, the reply of course is that babies are future human adults, whereas animals obviously are not."
Where I differ with Rothbard is that I think that animals likely would, in fact, have rights in a real natural order legal system for the same reasons that children and, to an extent, unborn fetuses would have rights - people are willing to fight for those rights. If you kick your dog, you are likely to end up in a dispute with someone who thinks you oughtn't be mistreating the animal that way. The purpose of the law is to resolve disputes without martial contest and, unless this dispute is resolved by violence, it may have to be resolved through the legal system. That is, I may file suit against you for your treatment of your dog, seeking to seize the dog from you. Unlike human offspring, no one has any better claim to advocate for the dog than anyone else so there are no natural limitations on who may sue.
Fetuses and animals are in the same logical category, they are both mute entities. They are, therefore, incapable of participating in legal disputes and their rights, therefore, extend only so far as those who advocate on their behalf are willing to fight for them. To paraphrase Rothbard, "We will recognize the rights of unborn fetuses whenever they petition for them." But fetuses would likely have rights in a real natural order legal system for precisely the same reason animals would likely have rights. That is, if you go to abort your fetus, you are likely to end up in a dispute with someone who believes you oughtn't abort the fetus. Unlike in the case of a dog, however, there is a natural division between who has higher and lower claims to advocate for the well-being of the fetus, so not everyone may sue. As I pointed out above, I believe the point of viability would be a crucial dividing line in a natural order legal system.
For now people might want to review Block's actual position in this video.
I don't think Block's response to the second objection (the last minute of the video) was a good one.
It may be true that it is better to be concieved and then evicted at say 10 weeks than to never having been concieved at all. However conception and eviction are two seperate actions. So the comparison should not be with the state of not being born, but with the state of being concieved but not being evicted.
Is there even a distinguishable difference between evict and abort. Both presuppose ownership (or possession of someone else’s ownership), death is only a possible by-product of the abortion/eviction process.
I think during some abortion techniques the fetus is first killed or something like that. That would be a difference from the technical stand point.
There is also a difference from another standpoint and that is that evictionism means that the evicted entity is offered up for adoption. This requires there be a public declaration of some sort on the part of the evictioner, it can be done anonymously, but it can not be a secret. (Same as with Block's child abandonment, there must be a notification or else they have not be abandoned.)
"Wait, why couldn't you believe it? You didn't seem to explain why."
Because I felt it was foolish and the entire terminology used I fealt didn't at all reflect the real situation and that the entire term of "evictionism" seemed to attempt to employ words to justify something which is totally different than what real "eviction" and so forth actually means. Even when you dig down into the essence of it, it comes down to more of Rothbard's natural rights stuff which should have been proven irrelevant a century before Rothbard began writing. A far better argument would just be the argument over what defines human life itself.
I think that the simple fact is that Block is a really nice and caring guy and I frankly don't think he would ever let himself come out on this issue and simply state that he supported the disposal of fetuses, such would be against his nature. While I can respect that, this does not change my viewpoint
"You're just a bundle of cells."
Except a far more advanced and capable one than any 3 day old zygote... What point are you trying to make here? All life is a buildup of cells, the difference between me and an undeveloped fetus can be seen quite clearly, they are little more than a buildup of cells, I am a working acting human being, if you are saying that this does not make a difference and that it's still a collection of cells and therefore commands "rights" then by this definition all life, even plants must command these rights. If the fact that it is only and nothing more than a collection of cells, not a thinking and acting human being, then this shows that it's disposal is irrelevant just as the disposal of the germs on your hands are whenever you wash them.
"While I am Catholic and anti-abortion, if I became an atheist tomorrow I'd still be against abortion. The whole point is defining when personhood begins, and religion is not necessary to come to the conclusion that it is much earlier than you believe."
No, but it is something I believe that will lead people more easily to this (and what I consider a false) conclusion
Evictionism falls flat for me. The idea here is that you have a right to commit violence against a fetus because it is trespassing on your property, rather than wait for the fetus to be carried to term. Oh, and one other inconvenient fact, the fetus is trespassing on your body only because you copulated and thus created him. (Unless of course, you were raped).
Suffice to say, this doesn't sound like moral behavior.
My view is that abortion is analogous to killing animals for meat consumption. Both are immoral, because both are violence against a non-reasoning entity. In my view, any meat eater who attempts to use force to punish an abortionist risks charges of hypocrisy.
The proper view of abortion and meat consumption should be that they are evil, but these evils are within the bounds of normal human existence. No one should ever use force to prevent an abortion from happening, since social ostracism can be a much more powerful tool.