Comment: Evictionism's take on Abortion

(See in situ)


Evictionism's take on Abortion

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 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.

"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