Dr. Walter Block, one of the foremost modern economists in this humble author’s opinion, has come up with a “solution” to the now age-old abortion debate.
For reference, Dr. Block is an anarcho-capitalist – he believes that there is no need for a government and that people can solve all problems through voluntary cooperation. In his view, private property rights (as found in nature, not in government) are the fundamental building blocks of civilized society. By respecting these rights, and cooperating and trading with each other, mankind can attain a relatively peaceful and cohesive existence.
Dr. Block’s views on abortion follow this basic framework – holding private property rights as the ultimate judge between two individuals. In a series of articles, I would like to 1) look at Dr. Block’s solution 2) critique it 3) offer a pro-life argument based on the same set of anarcho-capitalist values.
The Child is a Unique and Independent Life
Yes, according to Dr. Block, we are dealing with two individuals in the case of a pregnant woman – he believes life begins at conception. The mother and child coexist on the same property – the mother’s body, and as long as both are satisfied with that arrangement the pregnancy runs it’s course, the child is born and life moves on. But the conflict invariably occurs when the mother, who owns her body, no longer wants to permit the child in her body.
Evictionism
At this point, according to Dr Block, the mother has the right to “evict” the child. In other words, just like a trespasser on property, the mother has the right to evict the child out of her womb. He calls this third option “evictionism” and summarizes the basic differences between the three options as follows:
Evictionism is a compromise position. It lies part way between the status quo, where babies are slaughtered with as much compunction as we would swat a fly, and the present official goal of the pro-life movement, which is to force all pregnant women to carry their unborn child for nine months and then deliver them.
In other words, not only does pro-choice philosophy advocate eviction, but it also advocates killing innocent children (such as in partial-birth abortions and other circumstances). But the pro-life position violates the mother’s property rights, even though it does preserve the life of the child.
With evictionism, the fact the the child dies is a tragedy, Dr. Block says, but that is not the mother’s fault. But Dr. Block sees this as a long-term positive:
How will embracing the evictionism analysis help with saving precious human lives? Simple. With advanced medical technology, based on breakthroughs which are even now almost an everyday occurrence, it is extremely likely that a greater and greater number of fetuses will be able to be safely transported from the (original) mother’s womb to another safe and supportive place: to a surrogate mother, to the uterus of an animal, to a mechanical or laboratory contrivance (“test tube”), to some other alternative which cannot even be imagined today. Is there any doubt that this will come to pass if it has not yet already occurred – in twenty-five, fifty, or one hundred years from now?
In other words, as medical technology advances, more and more children would be saved from the dire effects of eviction until all of them are saved. But as it stands right now, despite the tragedy of lost life – the mother has every right to evict according to Dr. Block.
But is it possible that eviction is an unjustified position in natural law? Is it possible that the child and mother have a contract? What about the father’s role in the equation? We’ll look at these concerns in the next part of this analysis.
I’ve heard that argument before, and it’s the only pro-abortion justification that makes much sense to me. Abortion as it exists today does not meet the eviction argument standard, though. Currently (in America at least) an abortion requires actively killing the unborn child. Evictionism would still consider that to be murder. Evictionism only permits the woman to remove the fetus from her body, not to actively kill it before or after removal.
But the whole thing seems a bit silly to me. The baby isn’t trespassing. It didn’t purposely decide to enter the womb. We’ve got to use a bit of common sense here.
I think it’s a ridiculous argument.
Suppose there’s a blizzard outside. Someone comes inside my house, freezing, no coat on.
Do I have the right to send him out into the cold, with no jacket, knowing full well he could die of hypothermia?
We have an obligation towards other human beings.
But the whole thing seems a bit silly to me. The baby isn’t trespassing. It didn’t purposely decide to enter the womb. We’ve got to use a bit of common sense here.
Exactly. An easement is actually one of the cases I think can be made against Dr. Block’s argument.
Suzanne said: “Do I have the right to send him out into the cold, with no jacket, knowing full well he could die of hypothermia?”
Under a libertarian view of property rights, you have no obligation to let that person into your house. The fact that he’s freezing to death does not give him an ethical right to use your property. Repeat after me: a person’s need does not give him a right.
But from a Christian moral perspective, it’s pretty clear that you have to let him in.
This view on human birth gives me the chills. As in, it is bizarre and scary. It seems to me that Dr. Block views all of life in strictly material terms, thus his view is centered around property rights. That is just bizarre–life is much more than physical, material, or property.
“But the conflict invariably occurs when the mother, who owns her body, no longer wants to permit the child in her body.”
…
“But as it stands right now, despite the tragedy of lost life – the mother has every right to evict according to Dr. Block.”
If a woman is so worried about a baby trespassing in her womb, maybe she should think ahead and keep something else out.
If a woman is so worried about a baby trespassing in her womb, maybe she should think ahead and keep something else out.
I agree. Dr. Block does deal with possible objections of this line, but I don’t think he does a good enough job. I will cover this later – but essentially, I think there is an implicit contract when a mother let’s “something else” in. This doesn’t solve the problem when a mother does not agree to it, but that can be dealt with in other ways.
“Under a libertarian view of property rights, you have no obligation to let that person into your house. The fact that he’s freezing to death does not give him an ethical right to use your property. Repeat after me: a person’s need does not give him a right.”
You are neglecting a rather obvious fact: the baby is already in the house, and it was the choice of the mother and not of the baby to be in the house.
It doesn’t, but that’s not the situation 99.9% of the time. (I didn’t actually look that number up, but you get the idea). People like to bring up rare cases that favor their view more, but we need to look at the overwhelmingly majority situation.
My preferred example is this:
If allow someone to board my airplane, do I have the right to evict them in mid-air while in flight?
Obviously I would not have the right to initially allow them to board my airplane (meaning that contraceptives would be fully permissible). Obviously once I have landed I have every right to safely evict them, at a time and place the will not result in their immediate death (flying them to a remote arctic location and offloading them against their will would also be wrong).
If Dr Block would agree that I have the right to evict him from my airplane in mid-air after having knowingly allowed him to board, then he has a consistent position which which I disagree. Otherwise, this is simply another attempt to use inconsistent logic to support an arbitrary moral position.
Atanamis,
Dr. Block deals with this exact scenario you mention in one of his lectures on the subject. Suffice it to say, I think he dismisses the objection too casually – saying that the baby is not part of the contract so the plane example doesn’t matter.
How can I find part II of this entry?
Michael, I do apologize, but I think I got distracted when this piece was first written and never wrapped it up! What a lazy person I am – and a liar to boot!
I probably shouldn’t expand on my lies and promise that I’ll finish it soon. I would definitely like to. Perhaps this summer. But I wouldn’t count on it. However, we can all discuss it here if we’d like. Might actually be better…
It’s something I’ve struggled with a lot. I’m new to this site and very overwhelmed (partly cause I don’t understand exactly how it works) but I’ll try my best.
The eviction argument in favor of abortion rights is one that appeals to me especially, because as a die-hard libertarian I don’t believe the role of the government is to enforce morality in any way—only to protect the rights of its citizens against positive infringements.
Therefore, the eviction argument makes perfect sense: one individual with rights does not positively kill another individual—she merely evicts it from the property onto which it is positively encroaching.
Why am I pro-life? Because an unborn embryo or fetus, while fully human, is not fully adult. There are a lot of problems with the United States’ seemingly arbitrary decision regarding when a minor becomes a ‘major’ (the age of 18 is far too late, in my opinion). These problems should be reconciled. However, even the strongest libertarians I’ve met believe that there needs to exist for a parent a legal duty to his/her child.
The easiest example would be that by permitting abortion when it takes the form of eviction, a consistent policy-maker would also need to permit (what we call) child abuse when it takes the form of eviction. Dr. Block would need to also legally allow (though not morally endorse) a parent to leave their small child outside in the cold. Presumably, however, this is not something we wish to allow. Why not?
The most logical argument that I can imagine is one based on assumed contracts. When a person has a hand in producing a child, he or she should have a moral AND LEGAL duty to the child. In the case of the birthmother, it necessitates carrying the child to term. In the case of both parents, it necessitates taking care of the child and raising it “to term” (read: until it is a legally-recognized adult). This is the justification under which we are allowed to punish people who abuse children even negatively (e.g., by depriving them of food/water).
So when two people create a child, there can be a legally-assumed contract with that child from the moment it is human (which, science should show us, is Moment 0: the moment the child has a complete, unique strand of human DNA).
This would not prohibit a parent from finding another adult willing to accept legal duty for the child (e.g., adoption), and, as technological advances continue, I’m sure we’ll see the medical possibility of a pre-natal adoption.
So, I suppose, adult humans have only negative-claim rights, whereas children have extra rights which allow a positive claim from their parents. Parents who do not fulfill the positive duty to their offspring are legally punishable.
How is this argument? Is it sound?
A major weakness of this argument is that it may not address the legal duties of women who are pregnant by rape. How can they be forced to fulfill the obligations for a contract to which they did not implicitly agree? Unless the argument is clarified further, I think it would necessitate the legal permission to abort when the child is the result of positive coercion against the woman.
The “eviction” principle should work consistently if it is to work at all. A parent cannot “evict” their child into a blizzard. Eviction cannot take place when the result of doing so is immediately deadly. This is the reason for the airplane scenario. If I find a stowaway on my airplane (or ocean going ship, etc), I can’t (morally) just eject the person immediately. Instead, I must wait until a port or after landing the plane. Whether you like it or not, any consensual sex is a form of invitation to a fetus to inhabit your body. Once you have invited someone onto your property, you have an obligation to them until they can safely leave. This is a position that is consistent across any pairing of individuals and any kind of property (house in a blizzard, airplane, or your body).
I am perfectly willing to allow parents to give up their child immediately upon birth. In fact, people who do not want a child should be encouraged and supported in making such a decision. I’d go a step further and allow any parent to drop off their child with law enforcement at any time if they can no longer care for the child or just don’t want to. “Law enforcement” in this case doesn’t have to be a government funded by forcibly confiscated wealth, but rather could be any organization that chooses to protect the rights of the weak. A newborn child is definitely weak, and charitably minded individuals should be willing to accommodate the child if its parents are unwilling. Based on genetic creation though, the parents DO carry a moral obligation to the child until that responsibility can be transferred to a willing recipient or the child has reached a point where they can operate independently.
To summarize, the Abortion as Eviction argument is total nonsense, used primarily by people who are unwilling to acknowledge that the only meaningful questions on the subject are what are “fundamental human rights” and what distinguishes a “human” to whom those rights are required. Libertarians generally allow life, liberty, and property as rights. This leaves only the question of when the right to these begins. There seems no logical reason to start these rights at crowning of the child.
The site used to have a very active forum with detailed discussions there, and is not more based around the blogs. Long time members have accounts to create blog entries, but anyone can submit one to Colin for publication. Most of the entries are political or religious, though there have been other subjects discussed as well (especially psychological or self help).
Just jump in and make comments where you have an interest. We tend to pretty vigorously argue our positions, but most of us are very interested to hear opposing views as well if well articulated (as yours have been). It’s pretty normal to name call and engage in hyperbole, but do try to make a rational point as well! Most of the regulars won’t mean anything by their likely insults and harsh replies, and you will likely find your closest allies in one topic your harshest rivals in another. Don’t take anything personally though and you should be fine.
The contract argument should not be used. Nor does it need to be used, because the concept of obligation has the same effect, but is a more honest argument. Pregnancy fails too many prongs of the litmus for something to be considered a valid contract, even on the grounds that we claim it is “implclit,” which it is not.
All contracts should be obligations, but not all obligations are contracts. And with that in mind, one can understand the proper way to approach this problem. You have to make the case on obligation grounds. We don’t need to call it a contract when it fails the contract litmus test. If you can make the case that it is an obligation, then that suffices, because it has the same effect as a contract in that one is morally bound to something.
The obligation argument not withstanding, Walter Block is on the Right track to approaching this problem. For far too long, this prima facie fraudulent argument has been allowed to stand which depicts the fetus as the same kind of aggressor as a person who invades your house. And for far too long, the fraudulent argument that claims the mother had no agency in making that happen (i.e. she was a “victim” of biology), has been allowed to stand.
Pregnancy clearly and undisputably meets the criteria to be considered proximate cause on behalf of the moral agent. The only way the argument that one is a “victim of biology” can have traction, is if “immaculate conception” was the cause of pregnancies. Then and only then, can the moral actor claim they had no agency. This clear case of proximate cause is the litmust test by which we determine whether the fetus is actually the same kind of unwanted trespasser who runs onto your property of their own agency, and where the owner of that property exhibited no agency in the matter which facilitated that.
Abortion also fails to abide by some other accepted standards that would otherwise apply in cases of trespassers. The usual standard of “proportionality of force” contradictorily goes right out the door with abortion, even though that would generally be a requirement in cases of like-kind dealing with the usual case of a trespasser. And Walter Blocks position also takes this into account.
Few people believe that you can summarily execute the mailman, or perhaps a kid who steps on your front lawn to go fetch his bouncy ball, at least not without giving them notice that they have crossed a private property boundary such that they need to leave, but yet the pro-choice side who normally agrees with the standard of proportionality of force, somehow thinks a magical exception applies for abortion where that rule simply should get overlooked just because they don’t find it convenient to be logically consistent.
And such morally repugnant contradictions with respect to the proportionality of force principle are all the more insulting because pro-choice people often refuse to recognize that a fetus is not analagous to the same kind of trespasser as those described above. Unlike the mailman, the thief, the kid fetching his ball on his neighbors lawn, or the hooligan that is loitering about on private property, the fetus did not get their of its own agency, but rather is only in that position do to the direct proximate cause and moral agency choice of the parents who conceived that fetus.
The contract argument should not be used. Nor does it need to be used, because the concept of obligation has the same effect, but is a more honest argument. Pregnancy fails too many prongs of the litmus for something to be considered a valid contract, even on the grounds that we claim it is “implclit,” which it is not.
All contracts should be obligations, but not all obligations are contracts. And with that in mind, one can understand the proper way to approach this problem. You have to make the case on obligation grounds. We don’t need to call it a contract when it fails the contract litmus test. If you can make the case that it is an obligation, then that suffices, because it has the same effect as a contract in that one is morally bound to something.
The obligation argument not withstanding, Walter Block is on the Right track to approaching this problem. For far too long, this prima facie fraudulent argument has been allowed to stand which depicts the fetus as the same kind of aggressor as a person who invades your house. And for far too long, the fraudulent argument that claims the mother had no agency in making that happen (i.e. she was a “victim” of biology), has been allowed to stand.
Pregnancy clearly and undisputably meets the criteria to be considered proximate cause on behalf of the moral agent. The only way the argument that one is a “victim of biology” can have traction, is if “immaculate conception” was the cause of pregnancies. Then and only then, can the moral actor claim they had no agency. This clear case of proximate cause is the litmust test by which we determine whether the fetus is actually the same kind of unwanted trespasser who runs onto your property of their own agency, and where the owner of that property exhibited no agency in the matter which facilitated that.
Abortion also fails to abide by some other accepted standards that would otherwise apply in cases of trespassers. The usual standard of “proportionality of force” contradictorily goes right out the door with abortion, even though that would generally be a requirement in cases of like-kind dealing with the usual case of a trespasser. And Walter Blocks position also takes this into account.
Few people believe that you can summarily execute the mailman, or perhaps a kid who steps on your front lawn to go fetch his bouncy ball, at least not without giving them notice that they have crossed a private property boundary such that they need to leave, but yet the pro-choice side who normally agrees with the standard of proportionality of force, somehow thinks a magical exception applies for abortion where that rule simply should get overlooked just because they don’t find it convenient to be logically consistent.
And such morally repugnant contradictions with respect to the proportionality of force principle are all the more insulting because pro-choice people often refuse to recognize that a fetus cannot credibly be considered to be a trespasser in the sense of those described above. Unlike the mailman, the thief, the kid fetching his ball on his neighbors lawn, or the hooligan that is loitering about on private property, the fetus did not get their of its own agency, but rather is only in that position do to the direct proximate cause and moral agency choice of the parents who conceived that fetus.
“I think it’s a ridiculous argument.
Suppose there’s a blizzard outside. Someone comes inside my house, freezing, no coat on.
Do I have the right to send him out into the cold, with no jacket, knowing full well he could die of hypothermia?
We have an obligation towards other human beings.”
You didn’t prove or disprove anything? Laws aren’t designed to make you a nice persons. If they were we’d be in an Orwellian nightmare.
Do yourself a favor and think before you post.
Rather than the airplane argument, because that involves the passenger voluntarily boarding the plane, it’s like kidnapping someone, putting them on a plane and then evicting them in midair.