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.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/rape-and-incest-just-1-...

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.

You are correct, I do view

You are correct, I do view what's right and what God would likes us to do as the same thing.

I don't really have to wonder what is right, if I really drop my ego and tap into my spirituality, I just know. I don't always do right in the moment, and a lot of times it takes reflections that leads me to apologies or keeping in mind to change my actions if a similar situation comes up. As corny as it sounds, what would Jesus do, is really effective. Unlike what Sarah Palin suggests, I don't think Jesus would use waterboarding as a baptism technique.

People that interpret things the way Palin and other social conservatives do, are what keeps me away from churches. As long as someone lives by the golden rule, I respect them. Whether it's called karma or reaping what you sow, I believe it. I think it is a unprovable, yet universal law. Knowing what I know, I would want to mentally go to a dark place and take vengance on the sick fucks in this world, but that wrath is reserved to God, and I would imagine that is because we would otherwise become what we hate. If I didn't believe in karmic justice, how could I otherwise sit around letting evil people have rich lives while harming others? It is not because of cowardice, I am a damn fiesty one, it's because they will get theirs from God.

I literally don't get that channel

I can't 'tap into my spirituality'. Honestly I don't even know what that means.

And while clearly we agree on most issues, philosophically, that statement gives me the willies. It's hard for me to trust things that people 'just know'.

For me it seems that any justification for something people 'just know' is rationalization in support of opinion.

I can explain my ethical understanding and why I think things are wrong or right. I had to figure these things out.

While I am glad you believe in liberty, plenty of Christians do not. Notably non U.S. Catholics. Not to mention all the periods and places in history where Christianity and Judaism was decidedly not freedom friendly. Not to mention Islam and Hinduism, et al.

So 'just knowing' doesn't seem to be terribly reliable.

All these people 'just knew', or claimed to. Maybe you really do. But from the outside how am I to judge?

I think I can only judge by whether the person does in fact have a moral understanding that is correct, as you seem to.

I can only judge by the fruits of faith. I cannot perceive the seed of faith to know whether it's a seed of good or a seed of evil.

And I couldn't tell even the fruits if I didn't have an independent understanding of good and evil that didn't come from a seed of faith.

You might find this link interesting...

I heard this episode of the Joe Rogan podcast where this quantum physics Dr. explains an interesting experiment on non-local, or out of our dimension communication.

Basically they stuck a couple people in different faraday cages and with brain scans determined they were transmitting signals between the two of them when a faraday cage eliminates all electronic signals. The suspected answer as to how this could occur is that the brain transmission are going to a source outside of this dimension. I am not fully read up but Einstein did some work on this as well.

The pineal gland, our "third eye" has been considered to be the seat of the soul and possibly an antenna to communicate with God (I believe this). The pineal gland also produces the hallucinogen DMT. So maybe tuning into the God channel means climbing on the roof and spinning that pineal antenna until it stops being fuzzy.

I am am open minded but pragmatic, and I see a lot of people have a no nonsense attitude, where they will not remotely entertain Ideas outside of the mainstream. I am sure you notice this with politics. I think this "no nonsense" attitude they have is just ego protectionism. I personally am very interested in trying to take some hallucinogen trips in the future. I would love to go down to south america and try ayahuasca. I hear that stuff will destroy all ego protectionism, and introduce us to the real universe. A lot of people are afraid to take that trip though, they are afraid of meeting their real self, and understanding their real place in the universe.

https://w2.eff.org/Net_culture/Consciousness/the_quantum_bra...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzfSPK9eE_E

wolfe's picture

Not as rare as you might think... :)

I am as well.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

wolfe's picture

My argument is not wrong...

You are more than welcome to try and point out a flaw. But saying, "you are wrong. you are lying." is not a valid counter point.

And I would LOVE to know what your definition of strawman is. I think 99% of all libertarians should be banned from using that word unless they receive a certification in understanding of logical fallacies.

"It's important because evictionism is simply an extension of strict propertarianism."

No, that's not why it is wrong. It is wrong because applies disproportional force and ignores the details associated with a property eviction. It is wrong because murder is not equal to trespass. It is wrong because for it to be trespass, the initial invitation would need to be revoked in an understandable/compliable way. If a child steals a pack of gum from my store, do I have a right to shoot him to reclaim my gum? No? Why? Disproportional force. But I do have the right to grab his arm and reclaim my gum.

Property rights are absolute, though not equal. All things have measurable value. If someone steals 10K from me, do I have a right to burn down his 100K house in response, or should a court award me 10K + fines?

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

wolfe's picture

That is simply not true...

They do pretend that. They may acknowledge it long enough to ignore it, but that is as far as it goes.

An eviction through lethal force is a much different argument than the one that they put forward, which is pretense at a non-lethal eviction. And "harm may befall" the baby is pretending to give it lip service, but not applying specific lethal force to the contrarian point of view.

Re-read my analogies.

And even if we go just on the pure physicality of things (which I am not limiting my argument to), in what world is pushing a metal rod through someone's brain considered an eviction instead of lethal force?

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

You're just lying.

They do not pretend it. They do not say a non violable baby won't die as a result of eviction. If they don't say it, how can they possibly pretend it?

Do you understand what the word 'pretend' means?

I can only assume you are lying because you are trying to thread the needle and not acknowledge the real reason evictionism is wrong. It's wrong because it is an absolute property rights argument.

I don't see any reason you would be lying unless there are some other cases that you don't want to deny property rights trump all in. Maybe you do think it's ok to kick a person out of your house if there's a grizzly outside.

wolfe's picture

Wrong again.

Wikipedia:
"They argue that life begins at conception and state that the act of abortion must be conceptually separated into the acts of:

1) the eviction of the fetus from the womb, and
2) the killing of the fetus.

Walter Block believes the woman always has a right to evict but may only legally abort if the fetus is not viable outside the womb, or
"

Eviction is lethal force (legal abortion in his argument). They acknowledge this long enough to try and separate the two actions so that they can ignore it.

Further, Block is only trying to modify the original "right to evict" argument which is VERY clear about the lack of interest in outcome.

Now, I am not sure why YOU are lying or misrepresenting both their argument and mine, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just misunderstanding something.

To evict, once invited, requires notice to the evicted party before any force is used. And a potentially lethal threat before lethal force is used. You cannot invite someone into your home, change your mind without informing them and shoot them while their back is turned. (Commonly referred to as murder).

Further. The baby is leaving, moving as fast as it can. If someone were leaving your house, once evicted, as fast as they could, would you be allowed to shoot them in the back?

Eviction is a libertarian argument for abortion. It has been for decades. Block's take on it is little different, other than trying to play the "scientific utopia" card, which is crap.

The entire evictionism argument is premised on the false "right to evict with lethal force, without notice".

As he clearly states abortion is valid due to the right to evict.

Lastly, as far as the "bear" scenario. If you can reasonably be expected to know an outcome, and you take action to create that outcome, then you are responsible for its results.

If I shoot a gun at you, you may not die, and it may not have even been my intent to kill you, but if you die I am guilty of murder or attempted murder. The bullet is the direct cause, but I initiated the action knowing with reasonable certainty what the outcome was likely to be.

Kicking someone out into a bear is pulling the trigger, and the bear acts as the bullet.

That has NOTHING to do with property rights AT ALL. Proportional force is a well accepted facet of the NAP, and therefore murder is not a reasonable response to trespass.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

You apparently don't know

You apparently don't know what the word 'pretend' means. Start with that before you work on something complicated like 'evictionism'.

Evictionists don't pretend the a non viable baby won't die when 'evicted'. They state it clearly. They just don't think that fact trumps the woman's property claim to her own body.

So again I have to wonder why you keep making this argument unless you also think property claims trump everything so you want to make this particular case suspect on some other grounds than strict propertarianism.

Though you agree with the bear scenario so I'm confused why you are arguing.

I agree with your conclusion. You just made an incorrect claim in arguing against evictionism.

I can tell you if you told Walter that he pretends the baby won't die he would say the same thing I did, "I pretend no such thing". He also famously believes that if someone is hanging from a flag pole outside a high rise apartment window, the owner of the flagpole has the right to 'evict' the person rather than allow them to pass through the apartment to get to safety.

Walter is not 'pretending' the baby won't die if evicted. Walter is not 'pretending' the person won't die if they fall from the flag pole. That's the whole point, that the peril of the person who is 'violating' property is not the moral concern of the person whose property is being violated.

I disagree.

Don't forget the salad tongs

Don't forget the salad tongs they use to rip off an arm or leg at a time, and pull it out.

Let's be clear about what is being argued here.

It is not about "if the person has neither the understanding or capacity to leave after you have invited them." One of the reasons the way you argue has been soundly defeated (ie. Trespassing without any initial invitation is a different matter") is because of things like a woman can get her tubes tied or take pills to prevent any rape from resulting in pregnancy. I do not believe the manner in which you are using any invitation argument jives with the logic of any responsibility/nudge argument based on harm.

A Defense of Abortion by David Boonin is not freely available to cite from so I will refer to:

www.vmi.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=4294971196

Accidental nudge scenario elaborated beginning on page 6. The .pdf I linked primarily focuses on the non-existence problem and does not fully address other responses to the nudge parable (ie. responsibility argument).

Let us consider a couple rebuttals in a table located in the wiki to "The pregnant woman voluntarily engaged in sexual intercourse foreseeing that a fetus may result, and so has tacitly consented to the fetus using her body; no such consent occurs with the violinist (or pregnancy due to rape)."

2. "Engaging in a voluntary action while foreseeing a certain result does not entail that one has tacitly consented to that result."

3. "Even if the woman has tacitly consented to the fetus making demands on her body, it does not follow that she has consented to sustain it for the entire nine months of pregnancy."

What would be a real world application of your argument be? Well it would mean that Ron Paul had a "responsibility" to endorse the GOP candidate because he tacitly consented by participating in the Republican Party.

That is a wholly different logic than at a party A accidentally nudged B who fell into a pool and can't swim. A has an obligation to B because B would be worse of if A did not save him and no one else at the party has an obligation to save B because A nudged them.

I find your argument against evictionism flawed at best and a misrepresentation of the responsibility objection at worst.

wolfe's picture

My arguments are not flawed.

Unless you believe that it is acceptable to shoot an invited person.

The fact that ALL birth control methods are known to be imperfect proves that invitation is given.

The only form of non-invitation based sex is with plastics or rape. And neither of those are what we are discussing, precisely because they are avoiding or denying invitation.

As far as the nonsense about "not knowing the result". If I push a man off a 40 foot cliff, not knowing what actual outcome will be, am I responsible for murder, attempted murder, or nothing because I do not know for a fact what the outcome will be?

If you have sex without contraception, you are making a decision. If you have sex with contraception, you are acknowledging that you are engaging in an activity with a potential result.

Just like inviting the man into your home to tend his wounds. Suppose he is an asshole and makes horrible remarks to you. Are you entitled to shoot him when you tell him to leave but he is unable to do so due to his injuries? Lethal force is reserved for lethal threats. That simple.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

I will repeat:

Engaging in a voluntary action while foreseeing a certain result does not entail that one has tacitly consented to that result.

As it seems applicable to your additional comment. Hoping in a car does not mean one tacitly consents to a car wreck despite common knowledge many people are killed in car accidents.

The crux of your use of invitation is to whom? Your example is an invitation to one who exists. Is it possible to send an invitation to non-existence? It is the same reasoning one might say is used to blame a victim. Walking around in a short skirt with no panties is an invitation to be raped. Is that what you argue?

Remember ... all voters have a responsibility and obligation to fully support Obama for the entire length, duration, and term of his [strike]pregnancy[/strike] presidency.

wolfe's picture

Actually:

"As it seems applicable to your additional comment. Hoping in a car does not mean one tacitly consents to a car wreck despite common knowledge many people are killed in car accidents."

That's exactly what that means. How do suppose that it does not? We take the risks (injury/death) because of the reward (faster travel).

When make an invitation to a person who is incapable of complying with your eviction request, then you assume the risk of the invitation.

Existence prior to invitation is irrelevant. You are inviting their existence.

Invite the penis, invite the semen.

And you did not adequately (even close to it) address any of my points on capability for compliance. Or applying lethal force in the absence of threat. Or my attempted murder scenario? If I push a man off of a 40 foot cliff, but he walks away without a scratch, am I not guilty of attempted murder?

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

RE:

"That's exactly what that means. How do suppose that it does not? We take the risks (injury/death) because of the reward (faster travel)."

Then why do people seek redress if they tacitly consented? Answer ... because redress is premised on a harm done not tacit consent. A point asserted above conflating responsibility/nudge with invitation.

RE: "Existence prior to invitation is irrelevant. You are inviting their existence."

Fascinating assertion that any obligation can be derived from an invitation to non-existence. Existence is a prerequisite for invitation obligations. Surely you have a compelling comparison analogy or example to argue an obligation can arise from an invitation to non-existence?

RE: "If I push a man off of a 40 foot cliff, but he walks away without a scratch, am I not guilty of attempted murder?"

The man exists. Let's presume you could invite a man who does not exist to the same cliff. Do you have any binding obligations or responsibilities to any man that does not exist? You can not conflate an obligation deriving from invitation to non-existence with action harming existence.

wolfe's picture

I have already addressed all of your points...

With a possible exception of this one:

"Do you have any binding obligations or responsibilities to any man that does not exist?"

Yes. Simple enough?

Existence is irrelevant. If you signed a contract to put your first 5 children into slavery under me in exchange for a house, would your children not have a right of redress against me and you? This has in fact happened in history, so any dismissal of the argument other than a logical response would be unacceptable.

Existence is irrelevant other than without existence, consent by the non-existent cannot be given and therefore any attempt to apply a contractual argument to them is invalid.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

RE: "Yes. Simple enough?"

No it is not simple enough when the concept of obligation is well defined and you are arguing against it's essence.

"Every obligation has four essential requisites otherwise known as the elements of obligation. They are:

1. The obligor: obligant duty-bound to fulfill the obligation; he who has a duty.
2. The obligee: obligant entitled to demand the fulfillment of the obligation; he who has a right.
3. The subject matter, the prestation: the performance to be tendered.
4. A legal bond, the vinculum juris: the cause that binds or connects the obligants to the prestation."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_obligations

It is well understood an obligee must exist in order for there to be any valid obligation.

wolfe's picture

That is a contractual argument.

And besides trying to pick a word and nitpick definition and use it as your argument, doesn't even make sense.

No one is obligating her to anything. She, however, may not use lethal force without the threat of lethal force.

Your argument would require consent given by the other party (in this case, by the fetus, which it cannot).

It is simple. You cannot use lethal force without being faced with a lethal threat. Proportional response is a well accepted aspect of the NAP.

Abortion is lethal force not simple eviction. As I said, you cannot choose to use lethal force simply because you are unhappy with the reasonable expectations of compliance. The baby is leaving, one way or another.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

That is what evictionism is ...

You can not use lethal force if you can evict and eventually technology will make it so eviction can be done 100% of the time.

It is a fundamental change in the current climate of you can use lethal force whenever you want. Evictionism says nothing about the current uses of lethal force, it merely recognizes they are permitted and proposes they ought not be permitted if eviction can be done.

Evictionism is a good viable compromise because neither side gives up anything. Pro choicers still have the choice to abandon only the form of abandonment is regulated. Pro lifers get more life every year.

Now if you want to say but, but, but ... pro life. Fine, your argument has been losing badly and if you want more life perhaps you should consider a new strategy.

wolfe's picture

Wow...

Maybe you are lacking the back-story for "evictionism" but it is not about a compromise. We have that today. It's called adoption.

As a man, I am obligated to pay child support regardless of any decision made by the woman. Should I have the right to opt out of being a father? That is a sincere question for you, because that can be achieved today without "murder" controversy.

I decide I don't want to be a father, so I can I skip paying child support just by making that statement?

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Before you came along knocking

evictionism ... did you see my post in this thread below before your first comment? I will post Block talking about evictionism again:

What we have today is abortion being permissible at all times. Obviously for something like that to happen pro lifers had to lose some moral high ground along the way. Clearly life is good. Evictionism merely proposes a theory which acknowledges what we have now ... a lot of murder ... and offers a viable principle to gradually get back to all life. All it says if eviction and abortion are both options ... abortion is off the table. Eventually technology will make it so that is the case all of the time.

Regarding coerced parenthood, that is a completely separate topic. Start a thread. I might have a lot to say about it ... I may not.

wolfe's picture

I have read the libertarian/anarchist arguments...

for pro-choice based on eviction.

Block's speech could have been nothing less than two things:

1) Trying to re-phrase the arguments to make them more palatable to the Ron Paul crowd.

and

2) Imaginary fiction. Science will someday make us all immortal. So what? How does that help those of us doomed to die now?

Eviction is the anarchist argument for abortion. Nothing more, nothing less. And Block's take on it (I generally like the guy) could have been nothing different than a rephrasing of that argument.

As far as parenting. That was a simple question with a simple answer. If the child is a parasite, do I not have the freedom to choose whether or not to tolerate it?

That doesn't even include the complicated question of "murder/harm" so should be easy to answer consistent with the NAP.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

The pro choice libertarians

The pro choice libertarians have to paint a fetus as an aggressor of some kind in order to justify their violation of the NAP as some kind of an act of self defense.

Their only other argument is to paint a fetus as having lesser value. I think that is also the argument for slavery, this person matters less, therefore it's OK for me to own them, beat them, and kill them.

wolfe's picture

Absolutely...

In fact, an analogy put forth somewhere else in this thread, did exactly that. However, the baby provides no threat beyond it's presence making lethal force completely unjustifiable.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

At least their evicting the

At least their evicting the fetus argument confirms that the fetus is a person, because they have to be one to get an eviction notice.

Which is in contrast to the liberal argument that the fetus is the same as a tumor to be cut out.

It does not confirm a fetus is a person ...

it does acknowledge a fetus exists. Most assuredly person is not a legal term pro lifers want to be throwing around because 1) I highly doubt any court wants to be pinned down over the question what constitutes a person, and 2) legal arguments opposing a fetus is a person comprising all the elements of personhood as they have been quantified or pontificated on throughout history are going to be extremely difficult to overcome. Obviously, the reason they want to throw that specific term around is because it is widely used in constitutions, statutes, codes, decrees, etc. Consider for a moment the best expression the entire legal institution has been able to produce is "unborn person." Lol, I would love to see a new SCOTUS case and the briefs for is an unborn person a person?

You acknowledged abortion as

You acknowledged abortion as murder, and for murder to occur there is a person.

I am not interested in legal semantics. The laws are immoral, and an immoral law is no law at all to me. There are laws that say you can be held forever without trial, and I think you have a right to one. I also think we all have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines, even fetuses.

Murder is wrong unless it is in self defense. If abortion is to save the mother from dying then I am OK with that, but usually the body handles that itself in the form of a miscarriage, nature's abortion. I am also OK with abortion if there was a rape, but a regular run of the mill pregnancy is not a violent trespass that requires deadly force in self defense. At worst the fetus could be viewed as a freeloader, but as an invited one. More like a stoner that wants to camp out on your couch and eat your food, not a serial killer that wants to skin you, tuck their weiner between their legs, and wear that skin as a leotard.

RE: Murder

I would retort animals can be murdered so the term is not exclusive to personhood.

If you are taking the non-aggression principle to its logical conclusion I do not see how you can condone abortion even in a case of rape. It would be akin to blaming a victim from everything you have argued. I must ask. If you are not firmly standing on the non-aggression principle because you accept murder in cases of rape and not taking it to a logical conclusion what objection could you possibly have to evictionism with an eventual end result of no abortion at all? Is that not moving the ball in the right direction?

Ok, I will admit ... this made me laugh:

"More like a stoner that wants to camp out on your couch and eat your food ... "

I disagree that animals can

I disagree that animals can be murdered, I would consider that killing because I don't value an animals life on the same level as a human. I take the word murder to be the killing of a human life, not that killing for sport isn't twisted. Killing animals is only OK for food, defense, and other utilitarian purposes.

I don't have a problem with defensive killing, and rape leading to pregnancy would be worthy of an "eviction", but like I stated and linked a liberal article about, rape is tiny 1% of the bigger picture. My wife is opposed to abortion even in rape cases, which I disagree with her on, but I love her for her compassion. I wouldn't feel good about the abortion, but rape is a trespass, while pregnancy from consensual sex is not. Nature made sex feel awesome so we would procreate, and we all know sex is a vehicle for procreation. If you do not wish to procreate but want to have sex don't have unprotected sex, and don't murder the fetus to cover up for your oopsy. I don't claim to be in an ivory tower, as I stated, I have been an accomplice to murder, and have had to deal with the self loathing it involves.

As far as moving the ball in the right direction, a trespassing claim is better than claiming a fetus is the same as a tumor and has no value, but when it comes to murder I will not lend any legitimacy to it. I used to consider myself a minarchist, but now I would consider myself an anarchist, albeit a practical one. I don't think anarchy is sustainable due to human nature, and don't expect a heaven on earth. Like I have explained to atheists before, perhaps I could be foolish to believe in God, but what is the alternative, putting my faith in humans? That is even more idiotic. Betting on human nature is a bet I know I will lose, betting on God is a maybe.

You argue a

perfect example of pro lifers not in touch with reality. There are pro choice advocates who remember when abortion was outlawed. You know what? They are the reason abortion is no longer outlawed because quite frankly they do not want to go back to that crap.

So here the pro lifers are, having already lost. Living in occupied territory like the southern states under reconsctruction. Let there be no doubt they lost. An abortion can be gotten on demand anywhere today. It is 100% legal. Not only have they lost they have lost badly.

Someone like Block comes along and says hey ... morally pro life is right but your arguments are politically untenable. Consider this, how about if we propose outlawing abortion when a baby can be safely evicted? Eventually technology will make it so a baby can be safely evicted 100% of the time. This argument is politically viable because women still retain control of their body only the form of abandonment is restricted. If it is technologically possible to evict a baby you can't kill it.

What do you get by adopting this argument? You immediately get no abortions in months 7-9 because they can all be safely evicted. In anther 10 years you get no abortions months 6-9 until eventually all babies are safely evicted.

Then some jack ass former pro choice, formerly part of the problem says no ... it is all or nothing. Yes we know we can't win and we think anarchists are completely full of shit when they say all or no state. We laugh at anarchists all the time because they just won't help us move the ball in the right direction.

Guess what, with eviction theory we are helping you move the ball in the right direction and you are just being a stubborn ass by attempting to label it pro choice based on eviction. Guess what, pro choice based on eviction = a lot less abortion and eventually no abortion. That sure as hell is moving the ball in the right direction quicker than any pro lifers have done. If pro choice based on eviction ultimately leads to zero abortion, zero baby murder ... it sounds like moving the ball in the right direction.

By the way, I got no love for many pro lifers either because for years libertarians have been making fun of the religious right for their hypocrisy supporting the bombing of innocent brown people while having the gall to complain about abortion.

Finally, if you really want to go on a tangent in this exchange over parenthood ... are all men and women equal under the law? Should law equally protect autonomy in reproductive rights?