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.