> The logic seems sound, but leads to conclusions which are objectionable by current mainstream moral standards (for example, allowing extremely late term abortions for non-medical reasons.
With evictions in the post-birth world, we generally require some notice before the actual eviction. I have a hard time imagining that we would not do so for pre-birth evictions considering that the consequences to the evictee are much more severe.
Set that notice time to N months and you have then effectively prohibited abortions in the last N months of the pregnancy.
On the other hand, that may be pointless. If a landlord evicts someone without proper notice has the landlord committed a crime or just given the evictee a cause for civil action?
If it is just civil action then this approach wouldn't work for limiting late term abortions under evictionism because the injured party would be dead. Normally in the case of a dead pre-adult it would be up to the parents to sue, but since the mother would be the defendant she can't sue herself.
There is presumably a father though. If he didn't agree to the abortion maybe he could sue? That's a whole different can of worms in general--it takes two to create a pregnancy, so should both have a say in termination? If so what are the results when they cannot agree on whether or not to terminate?
> There is presumably a father though. If he didn't agree to the abortion maybe he could sue? That's a whole different can of worms in general--it takes two to create a pregnancy, so should both have a say in termination? If so what are the results when they cannot agree on whether or not to terminate?
Before birth, he may sue for his sperm, or the equivalent, back. The truth is before birth absolutely nothing is physiologically required of the father. Yes, there’s clearly a cultural role for the father before birth, but that’s not actually necessary for the woman to give birth. They really don’t enter into the equation. After birth, sure, there’s plenty of precedent for that and I won’t argue that here.
Regarding evictionism, I have to admit that I too find the idea of very late term, elective abortions distasteful. However, the act of giving birth itself is very dangerous for women, so just because her pregnancy has been without complication doesn’t mean she won’t die giving birth.
Being pregnant can kill you. Giving birth can kill you. Birth and pregnancy are mortal dangers. We need to let women choose themselves over their baby if that’s what they desire.
And of course the truth is most will choose to have the baby. If reducing the number of abortions was ever the real goal we’d have free contraception for everyone and the state would pay for all pre-natal and birthing medical expenses.
There’d still be some, but there’d be far, far fewer.
> Being pregnant can kill you. Giving birth can kill you. Birth and pregnancy are mortal dangers. We need to let women choose themselves over their baby if that’s what they desire.
A live birth is much less dangerous than the flu so this isn't really a good argument. I agree that women should be able to commit abortions, at least for the first trimester or so, but I wouldn't say that the danger of live birth is a good motivation for it. The most important reason is to give women who aren't ready to be mothers yet more time to prepare so they are ready and actually want the child before they give birth.
Your questions prompted me to skim through Walter Block's exposition of evictionism [1]. There is a sense of what constitutes a reasonable, gentle, eviction.
"From these examples is derived the principle that when one evicts a
trespasser, or deals with any other violator of rights, one is obliged to do so
in a certain way; it must be done in the least invasive manner possible
consistent with upholding property rights. If a trespasser is on your lawn
and you have a bazooka, you are not entitled to blow him away - not as a first step in any case. That is far too extreme and incompatible with the
doctrine of private property rights. The homeowner has the right to make
sure that the outsider does not trespass further, but he must be evicted in
the gentlest manner possible." -pages 21-22
When there is no possible gentle eviction, due to technological or other circumstantial limitations, Walter Block believes that one can evict even when the sure consequence is death of the tenant.
"Based on the private property rights philosophy, the individual then had the right to evict the trespasser in the most gentle manner possible. If there was no gentle manner feasible, an individual's property rights to her womb transcend the so-called "right to life" of anyone else." -page 22
It looks like the world "gentle" is doing a lot of work here. One could claim, in the spirit of your comment, that a 9 month notice period for eviction is required for gentleness. In an even more bizarre twist, one could argue that an abortion is only gentle when the fetus would be then transferred to a life support system that could bring it to full term. With today's technology, this would imply an earliest date for abortion instead of a deadline. Walter Block does not, in my opinion, clarify the issue of gentleness enough in the document to settle the issue.
I think a major flaw in evictions is the concept of invitation.
You cant invite someone out on a boat ride and then evict them while out at sea in the "most gentle manner feasible". The degree to which conception equates to invitation is certainly debatable, but it is an elephant in the room.
Similarly, if the trespass is allowed for long enough, questions of adverse possession and de facto easements come into play.
With evictions in the post-birth world, we generally require some notice before the actual eviction. I have a hard time imagining that we would not do so for pre-birth evictions considering that the consequences to the evictee are much more severe.
Set that notice time to N months and you have then effectively prohibited abortions in the last N months of the pregnancy.
On the other hand, that may be pointless. If a landlord evicts someone without proper notice has the landlord committed a crime or just given the evictee a cause for civil action?
If it is just civil action then this approach wouldn't work for limiting late term abortions under evictionism because the injured party would be dead. Normally in the case of a dead pre-adult it would be up to the parents to sue, but since the mother would be the defendant she can't sue herself.
There is presumably a father though. If he didn't agree to the abortion maybe he could sue? That's a whole different can of worms in general--it takes two to create a pregnancy, so should both have a say in termination? If so what are the results when they cannot agree on whether or not to terminate?