If you believe that a woman has a right to abort her fetus then do you believe she has the right to eat her fetus or perhaps sell it to a supermarket or a butchers?
Obvious troll is obvious. 
That brings in the ethical and moral question of cannibalism, regardless if it is her property. The case for abortion, as Rothbard put it, is that you have a parasite living off inside of you, you should have the right to rid your body of it. That doesn’t take in part the eating of an aborted fetus. Then again, in the wild it’s known for animals to kill and try to eat their offspring.
I am pro-choice, although I admit that I have not really looked into the ethical arguments for or against as much as I probably should have, but I affiliate with Rothbard’s argument: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp
The question is a bit odd, but it’s not meant as a troll question. Just because someone asks a question that’s beyond the accepted limits doesn’t mean he’s a troll.
Well, it’s posed in such a way that it is a non-sequitor, and at least severely misinterprets the libertarian argument for abortion.
It’s a non sequitur.
Lets cut the bs. Even if abortion were an easily solvable moral problem, there could still be others that our societies have to contend with, in which rights become muddled and unclear.
How do you solve a problem that is by design unsolvable? Spaghettio.
It’s not beyond the accepted limits. It is just uncomfortable for people who don’t use reason in debate.
It’s not really the question that’s a troll question I think it’s the way it’s phrased. Almost like you’re saying “You pro-choicers are baby eaters!”
It’s at least inflammatory.
“That brings in the ethical and moral question of cannibalism, regardless if it is her property.”
What is the basis for the ethical and moral issues with regards to cannibalism. If it is indeed her property shouldn’t she have full control over her property; even if that includes baby back ribs?
And the libertarian position on abortion is frankly muddled. Frankly Block’s evictionism strikes me as being pro-life while trying to be pro-choice at the same time, at least until science progresses enough. And pro-choicers seem to gloss over whether the baby is a human being and at what time exactly a fetus becomes a human being.
I would see no major problems with selling an aborted fetus. It is a disgusting premise, but if a woman wants to earn a living by growing fetuses to supply cannibal meat in a niche market, it would be her right.
If i decided to cut off my arm and sell it to cannibals, it would be the same situation.
He’s trying to perform a reductio, and while some say it was a non-sequitur, that only may be due to the fact he doesn’t understand the evictionism argument.
If he’s going to perform a proper reductio he will need a better wand!
Harry Potter reference, I’m cool.
Interestingly enough, I just watched a youtube video where Block talks about evictionism.
“He’s trying to perform a reductio, and while some say it was a non-sequitur, that only may be due to the fact he doesn’t understand the evictionism argument.”
Well then explain the evictionism argument to me. And the question was for people who define themselves as pro-choice; which doesn’t include all libertarians.
There are not much arguments that cannibalism is wrong. The only major ethical problem would be the situation in which the cannibalism takes place. If done out of consent or after death it is fine. Murdering a person to eat them is wrong.
The problem of when a fetus becomes a person and selling it for cannibalism does not matter. Murder is wrong, but eating the flesh of whom you murdered is no crime. In fact, it would be justifiable. You labored to end a life and devoid it of consciousness, turning it into an object, have you not the right to the fruits of your labor?
Basically, you own your body, and you can tell the fetus to leave at any time. It’s not a question of whether the fetus was invited (like a house guest) or is a real person yet (has a soul etc), but that you are sovereign over your body, and like any other property, you can tell people when to stop using it.
The parallel for changing minds on a wanted pregnancy is inviting a guest into your home, and then asking the guest to leave halfway through dinner. This is entirely within your rights.
I don’t subscribe to this argument. On nearly all matters pertaining to children and the unborn, I don’t have a firm stance at this time.
That is because it’s a red herring. The argument is centered around the womb being the women’s property (not the fetus). She is either a self-owner who has the right to evict the fetus, or a dehumanized vessel bound to slavery. The pro-life territory is a desert of special pleading, which you can’t set foot in without conceding that the fetus has more rights than the woman.
"
Basically, you own your body, and you can tell the fetus to leave at any time. It’s not a question of whether the fetus was invited (like a house guest) or is a real person yet (has a soul etc), but that you are sovereign over your body, and like any other property, you can tell people when to stop using it.
The parallel for changing minds on a wanted pregnancy is inviting a guest into your home, and then asking the guest to leave halfway through dinner. This is entirely within your rights.
I don’t subscribe to this argument. On nearly all matters pertaining to children and the unborn, I don’t have a firm stance at this time."
Yes, but if you check out some videos on Block describing evictionism he seems to be saying that the mother has the right to evict, but not to kill.