7 votes

Evictionism as justification for abortion? Murray Rothbard is full of crap.

So I posted the following in response to a post about spanking. Another DPer opposes spanking but supports abortion, which is silly. They defined their position as Evictionsim, and it appears that Rothbard is a proponent of the theory. This is not an attack on Rothbard as a person or everything he says, but I believe he is wrong about abortion, and so is the other DPer. Here is my response:

An unborn baby is not a trespasser except in cases of rape, which is about 1% of all abortions according to the pro choice New York Times.


So with rape being statistically insignificant, the other 99% of the time the unborn baby is aborted as after the fact birth control by irresponsible women. Are you in the moral right to invite me to your house, and shoot me as a trespasser when I show up? If you order a Pizza and the delivery guy walks on your property, is he a trespasser? No, obviously he is on your property as a result of your FREE choices.

As far as the idea of a fetus being a parasite, how could you not argue for infanticide? My 4 year old sucks away my money on food, and clothing, do I have the moral right to kill him on those grounds? A fetus is not a parasite, it is by human life in a stage of development.

Killing a human life is OK when it is in your body, but spanking that same human life when it is outside of the body is wrong, this is logical to you? So you want children to develop into good adults because you love them, but fuck it, go ahead and have their bodies ripped apart in pieces, and vacuum sucked out of the womb, if a baby is going to get in the way of going to the nightclub?.

I have a challenge for you and your belief system, I challenge you to go watch some abortion videos on pro life websites and see if you feel any empathy. I also challenge you to define at what exact point a human life becomes of value to you, and you then find killing them wrong? What day does the clock on the wall have to strike midnight rendering rights onto a fetus? How can you logically say something has no rights, and in 5 seconds when the clock hits midnight, it now has rights? At what point is killing a fetus causing an uncomfortable feeling with your guilt levels? Or, do you support a woman having an abortion at 8 1/2 months as well?

There is a parallel between abortion and warfare, in both situations killing is made OK by psychologically dehumanizing them first. First you rationalize others as having lesser or no value, then killing can be accomplished. The more someone lacks empathy, a sociopath, the easier it is to kill. I would think that the best abortion doctors are sociopaths that enjoy their work.

I understand that the most psychologically entrenched individuals are the women that have had abortions, and that admitting to being a murderer is a tough thing. As a former member of the U.S. military that served corporate interests, and as a result participated in launching fighter jets to bomb Iraqis, I am a accomplice to murder. I was young, naive, thought I had good intentions, and had the brainwashing reinforced by everyone around me. I would be in jail if I had done what I did in the U.S., but because it was brown people, they gave me little colorful ribbons. That doesn't mean that I wasn't an accomplice to murder though, and the mainstream reinforcing abortion as OK, doesn't make that not murder either.

In order to support war or abortion you have to be able to see the value of human life on a sliding scale, and who made you God? Where do others see your value of life on their sliding scales? Life either has value or it doesn't, and if you believe it is up to you to subjectively assign value, you view yourself as a God, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

We have different definitions of life

I define life not as something that is not dead or possibly developing into life, but something that consciously exists or could potentially do so outside the womb. Conscious beings are capable of suffering, which earns them special protection in our society.

As is clear from the description of abortion, this procedure would be a painful ordeal for any fetus capable of feeling pain. In those cases, it should be illegal in nearly all cases. For the rest of them, society should let individuals decide, as they themselves suffer more than anyone else.

While the statistic is worth noting that nearly all abortions are not the result of rape, is it not equally worth noting that over 90% happen before there is a scientific consensus that pain *could* be experienced? (see http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/12/do-fetuses-feel-pain) That is to say, up to 90% of current abortions do not conflict with the principle that one should not harm a conscious being.

Those pushing an alternative definition of life and being do so at great societal cost. This belief is also religious in nature, not scientific. They are also attempting to decide for others instead of themselves.

It's my opinion that as a matter of public policy we should agree on limiting suffering, not on limiting abortion.

This theory would be laughable if the consequences...

I would laugh at the notion that a baby is a trespasser and therefor can be evicted on the grounds of trespassing if it weren't such a horrible and violent act. You are not allowed to shoot or dismember a trespasser on your land unless they are threatening you.

For all you pro choice Libertarians, take a few minutes to look at pictures of an aborted fetus. Especially look at the ones that they dismembered while they were still alive so it would be easier to get them out of the birth canal. Or look at the pictures of the ones that they suck the brains out of again while they are still alive.

How anyone can say in the same breath, quit killing all the brown people overseas but continue killing innocent babies is beyond me. This same logical fallacy is on the right in many ways for those that oppose abortion but are in favor of capital punishment.

Taking a life that isn't posing an immediate threat to anyone is wrong, whether an unborn life, a brown person overseas or a murderer.

Life is life and no one has the right to take it unless their life or someone elses is in immediate peril. PERIOD

Hundreds of years from now, future civilizations will look back on America and the devaluing of life in all regards will be cited as one of the main reasons that our future didn't turn out too bright.

I guess I don't feel like any of us

are any good at playing prophets. I think it's much more likely we'll simply have a clearer definition of human life -- and therefore clearer guidelines concerning abortion. And better ways of stopping unwanted pregnancies even earlier. But that's just my $0.02.

A few years back Ron Paul was

A few years back Ron Paul was interviewed about his pro-life position. He explained it quite well. Talked about how if someone attacks a mother and injures or kills the fetus (or both) that they are charged with injuring or murdering the fetus. Same with drunk drivers killing a pregnant woman, they are often charged for both deaths. There are even situations where doctors can find themselves in serious trouble for decisions that end up harming a fetus. Etc, etc.

Here is where the law is really conflicted. While those who endanger/injure/kill a fetus are charged as criminals, it's just fine if you're the mother or the doctor hired by the mother who is doing it. Then it's ok to kill the fetus. But for anyone else it's murder.

That sort of view by the law is illogical.

Dr. Paul during the interview also described an experience he had I think during his medical internship. He walked into a room where they were performing an abortion. They put the fetus in a bucket... and he/she was still alive, dying. I think seeing that might shock anyone into being pro-life if not the illogical treatment regarding the surrounding law.


Here's a campaign video where

Here's a campaign video where RP briefly talks about witnessing the abortion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16Ij3Jh9rg0


The Principle of Taking Responsibility for Your Actions

is the principle that Rothbard dropped from the outset. It is this principle that stays with you through the entire child's life. It is this principle that is traded voluntarily in adoption. It is this principle that we apply to all other freedoms that we enjoy, such as carrying a gun, driving a car, flying a plane...etc; we take full responsibility for our freely chosen actions.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

^ Exactly!

Well stated.

Pregnancy kills women

Not a lot any more, comparatively. Just a century or so ago it was the LEADING CAUSE of death among women of child-bearing years. And as of 2010, the rate is down to about 21 out of every 100k American pregnancies. Fortunately medical technology has mitigated most of the dangers, but it is still a risk. As repulsive and tragic as abortion (or any homicide for that matter) is to me, I am not so arrogant as to suggest that a woman MUST risk her life for the sake of the unborn. I might plead, cajole, and even weep bitter tears, but I do not have the right to compel another person to risk his or her own life for a cause they do not themselves support.

And as for "evictionism" -- that is an awkward and apoetic construction that I thoroughly reject. I am not an "evictionist" just because I believe that the rights of the host supercede the interests of the parasite, I am an "anti-conscriptionist." And also intensely "pro-life" (see "bitter tears").

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

wolfe's picture

This isn't a direct response to your statement...

But something occurred to me while reading your comment. We have a million terms in anarchist and libertarian circles which are a kind of short hand to convey which side of an argument we are on for context.

These shorthand terms convey a great deal of meaning amongst ourselves and help to speed along discussions....

But, we must sound like we are speaking Latin to anyone listening. What's worse is, unintentionally, I think we expect everyone, including non-libertarians to understand.

And our unfortunate response to honest queries is usually, "go look it up" (hell, I said that once much lower in this thread). We think we are being helpful, but it always yields a library worth of information that we are now expecting someone to read, comprehend and then form an opinion on before returning to us.

We also think, discuss and work out problems in the abstract, which makes casual listeners say things like, "Why are they talking about a cliff, I thought they were talking about abortion?"

lol. Sorry, about the ramble, but it was your comment that triggered the thought so you get the reply... :)

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

In my view the minute someone

In my view the minute someone says "look it up" they lose the argument thoroughly.

wolfe's picture


I also believe that someone loses when they use a logical fallacy description in an argument:

"Well, I'm right because that is a [strawman, emotional appeal, etc]."

If you are right, you should be able to specifically address why the opposing argument is flawed without a reference (99% of time used incorrectly) to a logical fallacy. If the opposing argument truly is fallacious, it should be easy to tear apart.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

In that situation it seems

In that situation it seems the arguments already over, if the other guy hS resorted to fallacies. I don't see why you wouldn't point them out.

wolfe's picture

Because 99% of the time, the person making the claim...

is wrong but unable to respond and so devolves into what amounts to a weird non-argument attack.

If they were correct about the fallacy, it is easy to use the error in reasoning to destroy the argument without ever referencing the logical fallacy. But, if the accuser cannot do so beyond making the simple reference then either they do not adequately understand the logical fallacy or they do not adequately understand the opposing argument.

And in either case, they have proven they have no right to make the claim.

It is the equivalent of saying "go look it up", or more directly in this case, "you are wrong, go figure out why because I can't"

Instant lose.

I believe there should be a logical fallacy quiz to certify libertarians before being allowed to reference any of them. lol. /s

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

ChristianAnarchist's picture

A fetus is a trespasser -

A fetus is a trespasser - TRUE. Abortion is murder - TRUE. At what point is it ok to kill a trespasser? Can you use deadly force if someone is camping out in your yard? Do you get to take out the 12 gauge and blow them away?

It's not such an easy subject. We all have our belief system and I think there's not much that can be said about fetus tissue being human (just do a DNA test and you will prove that). Since we know it's human and we know it's alive (the cells are dividing) killing it is extinguishing a human life. When you extinguish a human life who is not threatening you with deadly force it's murder. I for one do not support charging anyone with a crime for doing an abortion but I will call murder murder. The mother should simply be aware that she is committing murder and plea to the Creator for forgiveness (spoiler - He forgives us all)... Just don't come to me and claim that you had some moral high ground for executing your little trespasser.

Beware the cult of "government"...

Abortion is homicide - TRUE

Not all homicides are murders.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

Some libertarian views need

Some libertarian views need no satirist, for their parody’s are in their literature.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

From a Christian standpoint abortion harms the abortionist

not the fetus, who being innocent, proceeds directly to heaven (if deemed necessary, baptize it) without the 'opportunity' to sin and go to hell.

Leges sine moribus vanae

well-argued case

Thank you for the well-argued case. However, I think there are some flaws in your arguments. Let me address them.

You say that rape is statistically insignificant. By what measure do you decide what is insignificant and what is not? It seems to me that if you propose an ethical code, it should be right 100% of the time. If it is only right 99.99% of the time, then it is a wrong ethical code. Statistics do not factor into ethics. In other words, either abortion of a fetus in a rape victim is also evil just the same as abortion of a fetus in a participant of consensual sex, or else they are both OK. In both cases, the fetus has no cognition of his surroundings or how he got there. Either he is guilty of trespass in both cases, or he is innocent in both cases. If you are going to make an argument for an unpopular case (i.e.: rape victims should be forced to bear the unwanted child), please state this explicitly. You don't want to convince anyone unless they fully realize the enormous significance of your standpoint, do you?

You equate having sex and the fetus that might be conceived with inviting a pizza delivery guy onto your property. While this comparison certainly does hold for couples who are trying to conceive and arguably also for couples who don't use contraceptives, it does not hold for couples who do. In your analogy, the use of contraceptives equates to putting up an electrified fence around your property along with a sign saying, "no pizza delivery guys allowed." If in this case, a pizza delivery guy should enter your property, you have the right to force him to leave at gunpoint and shoot him if he doesn't. However, I would say that a pizza delivery guy can reasonably be expected to understand his trespass is wrong while a fetus cannot be and thus the same violence that might be justified against the pizza delivery guy might not be justified against the fetus. On the other hand, this does not change the status of the fetus as a trespasser.

On the premise of the fetus being a parasite, you equate abortion to infanticide. There are some problems with this. Firstly, evictionism states not that it is justified to kill parasites but that the host ought to have no enforceable obligation to continue hosting the parasite. So the most extreme formulation of evictionism is that, while possibly morally reprehensible, it ought not to be legal to punish parents who abandon their children. Second, if parents can be legally (and especially: legitimately) enforced to care for their children by virtue of being parasite or by virtue of being human beings, then why can't you be legally (and especially: legitimately) forced to support the state, which is a parasite and which is composed of human beings? Thirdly -- and I'm not sure I agree with this argument -- given that it is impossible to prevent parents from abandoning their children, and provided that the child will die of it, is it not more humane to kill the fetus that is several months old rather than the child who is several years old?

You refer to abortion as killing a human life. However, the word "killing" is linked to the word "life" and biologists do not even agree on what constitutes "life". Moreover, no ethical code can depend on a biological definition because that would reduce ethics to biology. The whole point of ethics is that it has a higher justification.

You challenge the pro-life crowd to find the time at which point a fetus becomes "of value" to them so much that killing it would be wrong. At what point does the clock strike midnight indicating the fetus has human rights? Great question. I do not think the pro-choice crowd has an answer. However, you offer no alternative that is independent of a biological definition. Even if we accept that a fertilized ovum is alive and an unfertilized one is not, on the basis of what argument is destroying an ovum one second after fertilization worse than destroying it one second before?

You remark that the current abortion culture is at least partly due to an emergent psychological dehumanization phenomenon (or active campaign?) which causes people to have less empathy with fetuses. While this might be true, empathy is a biological phenomenon and cannot be used as a basis for an ethical code. Moreover, it is ironic, not to mention impolite, to inquire into the psychology of the opposition's standpoint while presupposing that they are wrong and hence irrational ... and if their fault is attributed to a lack of empathy, as though empathy is necessarily linked to rationality. As for the abortion videos you challenge the pro-choice crowd to watch ... let's assume I have both the stomach and the time to see them. Am I likely to encounter any rational arguments I haven't seen before, and that you cannot repeat for whatever reason?

You assert that the subjective assignment of value to human life is wrong because the assigner takes up the role of God. However, if assignment of value to any thing by any person is necessarily subjective. While God, if he does exist, certainly would assign values that are objective, we cannot know what they are. Your assertion that life is an objective value that trumps perhaps not everything else but certainly the mother's ability to visit night clubs, is merely based on your idea of God and His will. Perhaps someone else, who has been equally touched by God, disagrees with this assertion. Moreover, a theological argument against abortion is not likely to convince any non-believer, and that is certainly the majority of your target audience with this message.

Some comments of yours that you may want to ponder & reconsider.

alanius--- There are some comments of yours that you may want to ponder & reconsider.

"It seems to me that if you propose an ethical code, it should be right 100% of the time." -----

Ok, lets do a thought experiment. You are at a wonderful cocktail party upon the roof of a 30 story condo building. Everything is fine until a gust of wind startles you and you trip and fall over the edge. Fortunately as you fall a story down you land squarely upon a flag pole and hang on for dear life. Seeing this out her glass livingroom window, the condo owner and owner of that flag pole sees you the trespasser destroying her view of the city and wants to expel you off of her property. Even though you are hanging on for dear life, she wants to exercise her ethical right of property and so implores you to "let go" of HER flag pole. But, valuing your own life and holding on with all ten fingers you do not let go and fall 29 stories. Instead you slowly make your way down the flag pole and are clearly attempting to enter HER condo. Your plan to save your life and escape through the condo is something that she clearly does not want or else she would not be attempting to swat you off her flag pole with a long rod with a hook on the end.

---- (The point being: All ethical codes or principles are general guides to action. Both choosing which principle to apply in the various situations that life throws at us AND also the degree to which to apply it, is just as important as having an ethical code or principle in the first place. In other words, choosing the wrong principle to apply or applying the wrong measure to the right principle, can be just as useless as having an ethical code or principle in the first place)

"biologists do not even agree on what constitutes "life"."
---- Oh its well defined alright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

"empathy is a biological phenomenon and cannot be used as a basis for an ethical code." --- Au contraire, it appears that is exactly what we humans do. All our ethical impulses may come from this very emotion we call empathy. It would seem that all our biologically created emotions goes into creating our feelings of right and wrong, just and unjust, fair and unfair. People without empathy, appear to us all as people without ethical codes or principles and such people we call sociopaths.

"Moreover, no ethical code can depend on a biological definition because that would reduce ethics to biology. The whole point of ethics is that it has a higher justification." ---Again, au contraire. For starters see: "The Moral Animal: Why We Are The Way We Are, The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology" by Robert Wright.

"to convince any non-believer, and that is certainly the majority of your target audience with this message." ----- To convince the majority of a libertarian leaning audience, one should simply remind them to be consistent in applying the ethical code or principle of Individual Rights, all begins with Life. Libertarian ethical code or principles is "Pro-Life" in a very big sense. It begins with respecting Life, and we often add "Liberty" and "Property" because we want to point out that these are two derivatives of Life, ie they are required to support Life.

But Libertarian ethical code or principles do not end there. Another principle ie, "Taking Responsibility for Your Actions" now comes into play from the use of one's Liberty. Libertarian leaning people apply this fairly evenly across the board. For example when it comes to guns for instance, you are free to use them, but use them wisely, for using a gun comes with consequences. The mantra is "Use your freedom wisely, for your actions have consequences" is always good advice. Libertarians, religious ones and atheist ones, generally agree that while you are certainly free, you must also "take responsibility for your actions". Even though the use of a gun or even a car, has life & death consequences, we do not restrict people's Liberty because of it. But we do apply the ethical code or principle of "Taking Responsibility for One's Actions".

And we are quick to point out that others actions (or inactions) are not our responsibility. Your grandma smoked her whole life, why must we pay for her lung surgery?

"Pro-Life, with all kinds of exceptions as the situation reasonably requires."

By applying "taking responsibility of your actions", we libertarians will end up with a very nuanced position that is "Pro-Life, with all kinds of exceptions as the situation reasonably requires." For example: What? You were raped? I don't think you must take responsibility for that life. What? You are going for your 4th abortion? Mmmmm.... What? You are 46, your tubes where tied, and you're now pregnant? What? Your dad/brother/cousin/uncle got you pregnant? What? You are 11 years old, found in child brothel, and you're pregnant? What? You are Duke University sophomore and you and your boyfriend just "partied a little too much" and this pregnancy "is going to ruin your life" or "give you stretch marks"? Mmmmmm. What? This pregnancy is actually threatening your life? Its actually medically very very serious? Mmmmmm What? The fetus is with two heads and one body? Mmmmm....

Neither the Pro-Life absolutist crowd or the Pro-Choice absolutist crowd will like or even appreciate a "Pro-Life, with all kinds of exceptions as the situation reasonably requires." position. But this should not deter libertarians, we have found ourselves at very counter intuitive cross roads before. Our position of freedom has lead us to support the legalizations of HARMFUL & ADDICTIVE drugs. Drugs that may kill you and will take away your liberty, your free agency. Our position on free agency leads us to not support a legal minimum wage, even if it "helped" the poor and even "created jobs". Our position on everyone's universal right to self defense and also the government having "no standing Army" is all very counter intuitive.

Libertarian reasoning is all "counter-intuitive ethical algebra". Meanwhile people just want ethically simple "addition" and "subtraction". But just as in math, ethical problems often require counter intuitive answers. And to get there, we do our best to apply our biologically & socially inspired empathy to apply ethical principles, in the right situations and with reasoned measure.

Well, that is something for you to ponder and consider.


Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

very thought provoking

Treg -- thanks for a very thought-provoking response. Let me address some of your remarks.

You mention the example of a person who falls (or, perhaps, is thrown?) off the balcony and holds on to the flagpole of the apartment below. While I agree that this is a very ethically complicated situation, I am not sure what point you are trying to argue here.

It sounds like you are attempting a rebuttal of this form: Let's assume there exists a 100% right ethical code and consider the hypothetical. The ethical code will result in actions which are ethically wrong because of reasons X, Y and Z. Therefore, the ethical code is not 100% correct and therefore such an ethical code cannot exist.

In order to make this proof rigorous, you must show that X, Y and Z apply to all possible ethical codes. However, what if we were to include or refer to X, Y or Z in our ethical code? Then certainly it can no longer be a counter-argument. So: far from being an argument against the existence of an ethical code that is 100% correct, your X, Y and Z are arguments for it. Whatever argument you can make, either it is correct and either implied by or compatible with the 100% correct ethical code, or else it is incorrect and fails to disprove the possibility of a 100% ethical code.

From the wikipedia article that you cite:

It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms.[30][31][32] This is difficult partly because life is a process, not a pure substance.[33][34] Any definition must be sufficiently broad to encompass all life with which we are familiar, and must be sufficiently general to include life that may be fundamentally different from life on Earth.[35][36][37] Some may even consider that life is not real at all, but a concept instead.[38]


Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following traits:[36][39][40]

The article goes on to name seven properties that living things tend to have and inanimate objects tend not to. At any rate, this suggests that there is no definition of life set in stone.

You argue that emotions and in particular, empathy, is a cornerstone of ethics. I disagree. Simple example, suppose there is a conflict between two people, A and B. A has a rational and reasonable justification for his actions, while B has an empathetic and emotional justification for his. Who is in the right?

(This example might seem overly simplistic, but something very close to this actually happened to me. I was part of a theater production once and in the play there was a scene in which a teddy bear was stabbed and mutilated. The fallout was quite overwhelming, even among other participants of the play who empathized with the teddy bear. Thankfully, the conflict did not escalate beyond a petition against teddy bear mutilation.)

I agree that our emotions are powerful predictors of what is right and what is wrong, and that this can either be attributed to evolutionary psychology or to people's upbringing, or both. However, emotions can be wrong in their indication. Hence, we need something else to determine what is right and wrong.

I propose a conceptually simple (but in practice, not so simple) principle: in cases of conflict, the party with the better argument is in the right. (I particularly like this principle because it is impossible to argue against it.) Like in the search for truth, emotions ought not to matter in the search for an ethical code.

You state that the principle of Individual Rights, which is central to libertarianism, boils down to respect for life. However, you fail to demonstrate the truth of this claim. Murray Rothbard, for instance, derives the right to life from property rights: since you own your body, you get to choose whether or not it stays alive.

You mention the principle of "taking responsibility for your actions". Libertarian though definitely implies this is an important societal goal to strive for. The world would be much better off if everyone voluntarily chose to take responsibility for their actions. However, the problem lies with those that would not voluntarily take responsibility. The options are a) to force them to take responsibility, and b) to let it be. This all-too-shallow portrayal of the problem certainly does suggest option b) is preferable as it and only it is compatible with the non-aggression principle.

Basically I am pro-choice on Abortion, but ....

I can support either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson on the issue of Abortion because frankly my own beliefs and feeling on this issue are very ambiguous. That being said I am firmly pro-choice because I believe an unwanted fetus is committing trespass within the mother’s body.

First let me provide some personal background. My mother and sister both had abortions performed upon themselves before Roe vs. Wade was decided. My sister’s abortion was botched nearly resulting in her death, while also leaving her infertile for life. Her infertility was a factor in her first husband leaving her. If my mother had not previously aborted my womb siblings, I would not have been conceived and born myself. Please excuse me if I don’t regard my family members as being murderers or irredeemably evil.

I greatly admire Ron Paul for delivering 4000+ new lives into the world, and if he feels it is wrong for a doctor to help in taking a life, I can respect that. However, I have noted, that on several occasions, he has said he would not have the law interfere with a women’s access to oral abortifacients. Some of his pro-life supporters may be surprised at this. My understanding is that his stance is consistent with his belief that a person owns their own body, and therefore can ingest whatever they want into it. Presumably, this would mean a women can self-induce a miscarriage whenever she chooses during an unwanted pregnancy. Given the obvious risk and discomfort, that such an act would result in, I would prefer that the mother have access to the services of a doctor, or at least a midwife, when engaging in such potentially dangerous acts.

The theory that an unwanted fetus is committing trespass within the mother’s body is explained, in far greater detail, by the referenced discussion by Walter Block, (http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/b...) which he calls evictionism. I would simply note that if I invite you to stay at my residence, I can also ask you to leave. If you then choose to stay, against my wishes, I am fully within my rights to call a police officer to forcibly remove you, even to the extent of killing you, if you threaten violence in order to stay within my residence. My prior voluntary invitation does not imply an absolute right to squat on my property for perpetuity, or even nine months.

I believe Ron Paul’s suggestion that the Federal Congress, by a simple act of legislation, should remove the Federal Government and the Supreme Court from jurisdiction over this issue, is the most correct position to take. For questions this vexing, let there be 50 different attempts at a resolution. Criminal law is already almost exclusively a state matter, with the laws on murder, rape, assault, robbery, and such varying from state to state. Abortion should also be handled properly at the state level. Rather than one resolution being imposed upon every state, let each state decide as they will what should be done.

Like so many other political questions, libertarians tend to look to the process of how questions are decided, while most others look only at the intended result. As with Solomon’s splitting of the baby, sometimes resolutions require us not to ask for our entire pound of flesh. It is also a legal truism that, hard cases make bad laws.

The Libertarian Party was, and is, largely pro-choice on the issue of abortion, on the premise that the fetus is committing trespass upon the woman's body if she so chooses to construe it as so.

“So the unborn child is worthy of death for simply coming into existence involuntarily? That's a pretty demented theory.”

No more demented that killing any other trespasser, is it? Would you make it a criminal offense for a women to self induce a miscarriage through the use of an abortifacient?

I invite you to spend a three day weekend with me at my home. After the three days are over, you inform me you will not leave voluntarily. I call an officer of the law to help evict you. You refuse to cooperate. The officer tries to remove you by force. You violently refuse to comply. The officer, regretfully, then kills you in order to enforce the eviction. Even a former renter, who can no longer pay their rent due to involuntarily losing their job and income, can be forcibly removed from their home, despite the hardship this involuntarily causes.

The distinction hangs upon the fact that the unborn child has no voluntary choice in any of this. The implication is that since every act of sexual intercourse may result in the unintended conception of a new and unique life that every act of sexual intercourse is implicitly consenting to conception. There is no room for sport/recreational sex at all here.

To me it is still rather simple. Is an unborn child, life? Yes, of course. Is it human? Yes. Does it have an absolute right to the use of it's mother's womb for nine months? No more than someone invited into my home for a few days, who then wants to squat in my home for nine months instead. This issue gets somewhat difficult for me when the mother is asking for a late term abortion where there is a strong possibility of giving birth to a live infant (by cesarean) without undue risk to the mother's life.

I do find it to be somewhat inconsistent of many Progressives that a woman has total control over her body, in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, while insisting the state can tax her to whatever amount of money the state unilaterally chooses to tax her to pay for welfare to support someone else's illegitimate children. If it is wrong to impose an altruistic purpose in one instance, then why not the other also? Certainly a woman is more responsible for a child she helped conceive than for a stranger's child? If the child's life and welfare is irrelevant in one case, then why not the other? Just asking?.

"The dearest ambition of a slave is not liberty, but to have a slave of his own."
Sir Richard Burton

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

wolfe's picture


I do not judge you or your family members for past choices.

Having said that, I would ask you to think about this objectively for a second.

Did the baby trespass? Or was it invited with a revoked invitation that it would take a little bit more time than desired to comply with? Was it capable of understanding the rescinded invite and complying with it?

Is trespass a killable offense?

The fact is, no other circumstance, absent a lethal threat, do we consider the NAP to justify killing a trespasser, so why this one?

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

It's exactly the same as

It's exactly the same as eviction. No human has the right to live off another, period. It's that simple. We aren't talking about morality here because morality is subjective. Abortion is immoral as a form of birth control, no doubt about it, but if you want to talk about the NAP it's the fetus that's aggressing against the host body.

It has no right to be there no more than a person has a right to just enter your home and stay there. Even if you leave your front door open and someone wanders in, you have no obligation to take care of that person and every right to remove them.

Everything else is just religious sky-fairy nonsense.

By the logic that "you brought it into this world your responsible for it" where does it end? Why aren't you responsible for to support them for life? They didn't ask to be born, that was your choice. If you kick them out of your home when they are 18, but that logic you're the aggressor.

Sorry, you guys are going to have to come up with some non-arbitrary logic if you want to learn how to argue effectively. Once again I'm saddened by all the pseudo-libertarians here.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

How does it feel

to know absolutely everything, without error, about everything?

Liberty = Responsibility

My 10 year old kid has "no right to live off me."

Therefore, I think I'll take him out back and put a bullet in his head.

Sounds legit.

Downvoting is obviously easy,

Downvoting is obviously easy, thinking is hard. LOL, what a bunch of statist wannabes.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

wolfe's picture

I was going to upvote you...

to make your comment visible again. Why the name calling?

And please, show me ANYONE, ANYWHERE on EITHER side of this argument that has argued for state intervention of any kind? Or are you just musing to yourself that anyone who disagrees with you must be a twit?

It might help if you actually ready the opposing arguments before you assumed you fully understood everyone's points.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

wolfe's picture

You haven't read any of the below then...

And for the record, I am an atheist and anarchist. You would be hard pressed to have better "street cred" in that regard than me... lol.

You acknowledge that the baby is a person. So let's think about that.

How did that person come to exist in it's present location? Was it invited or did it trespass?

If it was invited, as in the grown up world, aren't you required to inform your invited guest that are no longer welcome in a way that they understand?

If they cannot understand or are unable to comply within a reasonable timeframe, do you have the right to kill them and drag them from your property with the absence of them providing a lethal threat?

Should they be unable to comply within your expected time frame (say 30 seconds) and instead require 5 minutes (due to some condition like a wheelchair) would you be within your rights to kill them at the 3 minute mark and drag them from you property because they took too long?

If it was a trespasser from day 1, but provided no lethal threat, are you allowed to use lethal force? I feel sorry for your neighborhood kids and dogs.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

You aren't using lethal

You aren't using lethal force, you are removing something and a secondary consequence is lack of survival. You're analogies are therefor all straw men and your "neighbors and dogs" statement a classic appeal to emotion fallacy.

If you're trespassing on my property, I have a right to remove you. What happens from there isn't something the law should have anything to do with punishing people for.

How about this one for you. You wake up one day to find yourself attached (use your imagination a bit) to another human. You were kidnapped because this other person needed to be attached to you to save their life and you're the only person who is compatible. If you choose to disconnect yourself prior to 9 months, the person dies. This person wasn't the one you kidnapped you, he had nothing to do with it. It was done by someone else who cared about him so he's completely innocent.

In your world you don't have a right to disconnect yourself because you are calling that "aggression" simply because it will result in death. This is why all these arguments fail, they are mistakenly using the term aggression simply because of the result just like modern liberals who say those of us who don't want to be robbed to pay for their social schemes are "murdering" the poor. Same convoluted logic fail.

Put all that aside for a second and just think about the libertarian reality for a second. Abortion has been around forever and it isn't going anywhere. You can build a big massive state mechanism to police it, and you will only drive it underground as with any prohibition and then you'll be left with the same abortions anyway, and a massive police state. Fail and fail.

I'm not saying it isn't immoral, but that when it comes to something involving the state invading your body, you better err on the side of keeping the state out. If you don't get this, you still have a long way to go on the road to being a libertarian.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

wolfe's picture

It is lethal force.

As I said before, in what world is shoving a metal rod through someone's brain or forcing them to consume poison considered eviction and not lethal force?

See, an interesting biological fact is that the baby is killed prior to removal to allow the body to let it go. In some cases, late term abortions would result in actual birth. But, having said that, the eviction is a death sentence, not a possibility, and so I am not limiting my argument to only when the baby is killed before removal.

Your analogies do not hold up, because of that teensy fact. When is it ok to use lethal force in response to an invited person who you have revoked that invitation?

In your analogy, you have created an initial harm. You tried to pass that off to a third party to make the actual "parasite" blameless, but it is more than that.

For your analogy to hold true, I would have had to invite the person to attach themselves to save their life (committing myself to the 9 months), change my mind in 4 months and decide I do not want to anymore. I tell them to leave, they are unable to do so, so I shoot them in the head. That is a much closer representation of the actual scenario.

I provide no emotional strawman, and the comment you referred to was a joke -following- my argument.

And why would you throw government in? I don't even think murder should be handled by the government, so that is your strawman.

Try answering a previous question... When is it OK to use lethal force against a trespasser?

And of course, the natural extension of your argument is that it is ok, because it is effectively infanticide? Like in the days when people left unwanted babies to die and be eaten in the woods. But hey, not your fault, you just kicked it out, right?

Eviction based abortion arguments are horribly flawed.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -