Abortion, Pro-life, Pro-choice

It is time to resolve the abortion debate

By Walter E. Block | August 7, 2024

It is time, no, it is long past time, to resolve the abortion debate, once and for all. Neither the pro-life nor the pro-choice position can withstand serious analysis. Both must be rejected. In favor of what? Evictionism; on this see below. First, let us heavily criticize the two major contenders in this debate.

According to the pro-life position, human life begins at the two cell fetus stage. The sperm alone with not eventuate into an adult member of our species, nor will the egg all on its own; united, together, in the right (womb) environment, the two of them, together, will. In the pro-life position, this tiny Homo-sapien has rights equal to every other member of this species. Among them is the right not to be murdered.

Now consider a twelve year old girl who is walking down the street. She is grabbed, raped, and impregnated. There is a morning after pill available to her, of course, but not in the view of the pro-lifers. For, if she takes it, she will kill, murder, the tiny human being now residing inside her.

But this is to add legal insult to the initial injury of rape; as “punishment” for being the victim of this sexual assault, she is condemned to an existence of mine months akin in some serious sense to being imprisoned. Talk about not only blaming the victim, but actually punishing her. If there is any such thing as injustice, this nine-month sentence to that pre-teen girl certainly fits the bill.

Another embarrassment for the pro-life position is the exception advocates thereof make when the mother’s life is in danger; then, all bets are off and this parent’s life is saved at the expense of her pre-born child. But if her baby has equal rights with herself, the bed rock principle of pro-lifers, why should we always give the nod to her? Maybe, instead, we should flip a coin as to who lives and who dies, since, in this is akin to a life boat situation with neither one’s rights in the ascendency. Further, if pro-lifers were serious, any woman who has an abortion should be considered a murderer and punished as such, along with the doctor who helps her commit this crime. This rarely if ever occurs. So much for the pro-life perspective.

The philosophical plight of the pro-choicers is, if anything, even more dire. In the view of this horrific perspective, the fetus is simply a bunch of human cells, similar to a cyst, or a useless appendix, or the tips of finger nails, or human hair, or a callous. To think of this blob as a rights-bearing entity is totally beyond their ken. Thus, an abortion of a fetus that is due for birth in one hour from now is entirely justified. It is just like cutting your toenails. But the difference between such a pre-born child and that same baby one hour old is, except for a change of geographical address, the same as the divergence between all of us two hours apart. Namely, there is no difference at all in either case, from an ethical point of view. Thus, the pro-choice position amounts to support for infanticide, which forever ought to ban it from serious consideration on the part of anyone with even one ethical bone in his body.

Given that both these major contenders fold like a house of cards, what is left? Evictionism. This is a principled compromise between pro-life and pro-choice, that is vulnerable to neither objection which fells the other two. In this view, the mother may evict her pre-born baby at any time she wishes, but may never kill him. I refuse to characterize this person as an “it” since as a proponent of this philosophy I agree with the pro-lifers that full rights-bearing human life starts with two-call stage of development. Under present medical technology, an evicted pre-born person will die in the first two trimesters, but will survive in the third.

But does the fetus not have the right to life? No, there are no positive rights in the libertarian philosophy, and eviction is an application of that perspective to the abortion issue. There only negative rights: the right not to be murdered, raped, enslaved, kidnapped, stolen from, threatened with physical violence, etc. In any case, the status of the fetus who results from rape, back to that 12 year old girl, is one of trespasser. Let me repeat that: this baby is occupying space owned by his mother against her will. Private property rights are an integral aspect of this philosophy, and this pre-born child, although entirely innocent (his father, not he, is the criminal rapist) is still a squatter inside of an unwilling girl’s most important piece private property, herself.

So, for the first two trimesters, the practical implications of evictionism are identical to those of the pro-choicers. This young girl may rid herself of her trespassing occupant, even though it spells the death of the latter. In the third trimester, matters are the very opposite: the mother may rid herself of the fetus, evict him, but must do so in the same manner that any other innocent trespasser must be evicted: in the gentlest manner possible, preserving his life.

Very few abortions, thankfully, involve rape. What about the more usual case in which the birth control fails, or the woman changed her mind, etc? Did she not invite the fetus onto her private property womb, for a duration of mine months? No. An invitation requires both an inviter and an invitee, and at the time of voluntary or any other type of sexual intercourse, the latter has not yet come into existence. (It usually takes something like 30-45 minutes for the sperm to reach the egg.) Thus, evictionism applies just as well to this happily more ordinary case: eviction at any time, murder, never.

Pegs:

How long does it take for the sperm to reach the egg in the case of human sexual intercourse?

https://www.google.com/search?q=How+long+does+it+take+for+the+sperm+to+reach+the+egg+in+the+case+of+human+sexual+intercourse%3F&oq=How+long+does+it+take+for+the+sperm+to+reach+the+egg+in+the+case+of+human+sexual+intercourse%3F&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDE4NzJqMGo0qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

August 7, 2024 | 5 Comments »

Leave a Reply

5 Comments / 5 Comments

  1. @rufus So, you are saying that under certain circumstances there is such a thing as “the right to kill” another human being? How very convenient.

  2. Just 1% of women who seek abortion do so for rape. Just 0.5% of women who seek abortion do so for incest. Some states are making abortion legal in the case of rape, incest, or if the health of the mother is endangered. States can now decide the criteria for abortion.

    @rufus, when you state “no one should dictate what a woman does with her body,” you are stating the essence of the “pro-choice” movement.

    However, some would say that this idea justifies giving a woman the right to kill her own child. And if we justify the right of a woman to kill her own child, how can we demand that others not commit murder?

    While I don’t agree with a lot that is in this article, I do think the author effectively reflects on the drawbacks to any one-size-fits-all, rigid approach to abortion, whether that be pro-life or pro-choice.

    I believe most Americans are moderate on the position of abortion: that it should be legal in some situations but not in others, and that the idea that abortion be completely legal all the way up to birth and beyond is not acceptable to most Americans.

    For a moving reflection on abortion, there is a 3.22 minute talk by Mother Theresa during the Clinton Administration here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5XZC6OA2_c

    Thank you for this interesting article!

  3. I agree in principal to what Rufus said. But it should be the government which has no say in regard to what anyone does with their body.

    And by extension to Rufus’ argument, We can shut down the suicide hotlines, safe injection sites, and generally any type of welfare as well. As all those Gooberment programs interfere with personal choice.

  4. There is a much simpler principle here:

    No man or woman – NO-ONE – should dictate what a woman does with her body !

    She should be the only one who makes the decision