Block would say that the plane ride is an implicit contract, so you have no right to evict them at 30k feet. However, rape victims never implicitly agreed to carry a baby to term, so you can evict. Maybe mothers who change their minds at the last second have waved their rights…?
Abortion is just wrong. Rand was just plain wrong about it. [SENTENCE DELETED. DO NOT SMEAR ROTHBARD HERE. -LILBURNE] If a woman has sex voluntarily then she has no right to abort the child. If she is raped and then gets pregnant she still has no right to abort the child because she is denying homesteading of the child by not waiting until it gets out of the womb and is up for adoption.
Linked right from the main site.
http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/16-wisniewski-block-on-abortion/
I think this paper is fascinating.
However, rape victims never implicitly agreed to carry a baby to term, so you can evict
Correct, however the question is do you have the right to evict in any manner you deem fit. Like the use of lethal force, when lethal force is not being used to resist the eviction?
Maybe mothers who change their minds at the last second have waved their rights…?
This brings to mind another question. What about those who decide to have a baby, become pregnant, then change thier minds? It would be as though they invited the fetus in, then threw it out the plane.
It is okay for you to be against abortion but in order to have a free society you must not push it unto others. I think abortion is fine no matter what the case. I believe that we have full ownership of our bodies and no one has any right to tell me what to do with it and i have no right to tell others what to and what not to do with theirs. If you want a free society than you cannot have arbitrary feelings of many oppress some or else your “free society” is nothing more than an affectation and you are in fact resorting to giving power to the vacillating masses just like the anarcho-communists wish to do with their direct democracy.
Without granting any positive rights… ceteris parabis you have to choose the least lethal method. So if it costs literally nothing, I should have to buy artificial incubation, but if it costs $10 more than the alternative I’m not bound. Although its obvious how cheap it would be to start a charity to provide free incubations at this low cost 
Right so, to my surprise, I find myself against abortion in this case. However the usual economic arguments do not apply, since a mother’s future prospect to “attract babies” is not harmed by her unjust actions. It is likely that these laws will not be largely enforced in an ancap society for the same reasons that animal rights go down the drain.
i have no right to tell others what to and what not to do with theirs.
But heres the problem. If we assume that unborn babies or a fetus is a person and has a right to its own life (which the eviction argument does) then is it ok to kill the baby or fetus in the process of exercising your right to your body?
Without granting any positive rights… ceteris parabis you have to choose the least lethal method. So if it costs literally nothing, I should have to buy artificial incubation, but if it costs $10 more than the alternative I’m not bound.
Artificial incubation would be something provided to a intact baby post abortion. I dont see how anyone would be obligated to provide. My concern is the method of abortion chosen (read method of eviction). Having the baby removed intact versus removing the baby piece by piece. Unless the baby has a bomb and is threatening to use it, the only non criminal method of abortion would to to remove it intact.
It is likely that these laws will not be largely enforced in an ancap society for the same reasons that animal rights go down the drain.
Are we both looking at this from the eviction point of view? All abortions, provided that they dont kill the baby in the process, could be seen as legitamite. So only some methods of aborting a pregnancy would be criminal.
If a woman has sex voluntarily then she has no right to abort the child.
With this logic that means all women (and men) who agree to voluntarily have sex also agree to having the woman pregnant if it so happens. Voluntarily having sex =/= agree to not have abortion. My girlfriend and I voluntarily agree to having sex, and we use protection, so we obviously agree that we don’t want her pregnant. It would be different if we both had the intention of having her conceive a child. Just because someone has sex doesn’t mean they want a child. It almost seems like not allowing someone to have an abortion is like a punishment for having sex.
If she is raped and then gets pregnant she still has no right to abort the child because she is denying homesteading of the child by not waiting until it gets out of the womb and is up for adoption.
She was aggressed upon, and had someone forcibly homestead her (in a since), and through that act she became pregnant through unwanted circumstances, and now you say she has to live with the outcome and has no right to regain her own life (and property) back?
Just a quick side question:
Everyone naturally seems to be focusing on the rights of the mother, but what about the rights of the father? Is the mother the 100% owner of the fetus, like one of her internal organs? If the father is against an abortion, would he be entitled to any compensation for the mother aggressing against his property?
Also, since the libertarian stance is that the parents own the child until the child expresses free will, does the father have an automatic custody right after the baby is born, or can the mother simply keep the child as her exclusive property and bar the father from ever seeing it? Essentially, is the mother the 100% natural exclusive owner of the child from conception on?
Didn’t want to start a new thread since it’s kind of related, but I was just wondering about this.
Mises Pieces, I addressed that idea in an earlier post. Since the baby would be a creation of both the mother and father, and they both agree to an abortion, it would be two against “one” in favor of the mother’s right to self-ownership. If both agree to halt the production of something that’s in the process of being created, I don’t see how someone could say otherwise.
As a couple, and the father is against abortion, they would have to work that out amongst themselves and come to a conclusion, but it seems that the mother does the most work as she’s the host for nine months, and all the father did was supply an ingredient. I would lean in favor that the mother would have (more) ownership in the production process.
If the two people are in a relationship I don’t see many chances of the mother keeping the child from the father (unless the relationship is completely unstable, or she believes the father would have a negative influence on the child’s life, etc). Generally, it’s more likely the father will run out on the child than the mother.
She was aggressed upon, and had someone forcibly homestead her (in a since), and through that act she became pregnant through unwanted circumstances, and now you say she has to live with the outcome and has no right to regain her own life (and property) back?
Is there a third party in this scenario? The woman, the rapist, and the child? If the child is an innocent third party, and if the child has a right to its own life. How can we justify killing it for the sins of its father? While not punishing the mother for the sins of the rapist? But if you believe it is not a human and has no rights then this is a non issue.
My girlfriend and I voluntarily agree to having sex, and we use protection, so we obviously agree that we don’t want her pregnant. It would be different if we both had the intention of having her conceive a child. Just because someone has sex doesn’t mean they want a child. It almost seems like not allowing someone to have an abortion is like a punishment for having sex.
What about neglegence? You dont want a child, you dont use a contaceptive. It would be akin to having a party where friends of friends show up. You dont know the people, you didnt invite them, yet didnt take the time or energy to control those coming and going. You wake up the next morning and some strange dude is passed out on your couch. You should be able to kick him out, but do you have the right to kill him?
Is there a third party in this scenario? The woman, the rapist, and the child? If the child is an innocent third party, and if the child has a right to its own life. How can we justify killing it for the sins of its father? While not punishing the mother for the sins of the rapist? But if you believe it is not a human and has no rights then this is a non issue.
I wouldn’t call the child “innocent” in this scenario, but for now I’ll stick with neutral. How can we justify killing it for the sins of its father? So the rapist is now a father figure? I don’t think the rapist cared whether or not his victim became pregnant out of his aggression. What the rapist thinks at this point is of no concern (I don’t think a rapist would actually believe that his victim should raise his child, if so he’s more sick than originally thought). The child has a right to its own life, but what human has a right to life at the expense of another, especially one that is unwanted?
EDIT: I don’t believe that in the production stage it’s a human.
What about neglegence? You dont want a child, you dont use a contaceptive. It would be akin to having a party where friends of friends show up. You dont know the people, you didnt invite them, yet didnt take the time or energy to control those coming and going. You wake up the next morning and some strange dude is passed out on your couch. You should be able to kick him out, but do you have the right to kill him?
If you kick him out, and he dies in the street, I don’t think that’s much of your concern if he’s off your property. The party analogy won’t work, that’s like saying the woman had agreed to have sex with someone, and so happened he invited some of his sperm into the woman’s vagina without her knowing, and the next day he’s gone and she’s pregnant, she now has to suffer the consequences.
My view on neglegence is that if the parents of the child are not smart enough to use protection in the first place, that probably shouldn’t have a child. Everyone I’ve known to have a child I thought they should have had an abortion based on that they were far from ready from ever having and raising a child. I didn’t see them fit to raise a child. I don’t see the point in making someone raise a child they won’t be able to raise properly. What’s the point in bringing in more children into this world with unfit parents.
>“So what? I ask once more, does inviting someone in negate your right to uninvite them later?”
>>“If by inviting them on a scenic plane ride and then uninviting them by throwing them out of your plane at 30,000 feet, then yes.”
Except that an implicit contract is only possible via an explicit one. Something fetus’, babies, children, coma patient etc. cannot do.
"Abortion is just wrong. Rand was just plain wrong about it. [DELETED]
Says the dude who doesn’t even understand the most basic part of political philosophy. How ironical. [BARB DELETED. CONZA, I DELETED KENNETH’S SMEAR AGAINST ROTHBARD, SO LET’S NOT LET THIS DEBATE GET PERSONAL. THANKS. -LILBURNE]
(From the very chapter you are criticising)
“Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body.[2] Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.”
"[2]What we are trying to establish here is not the morality of abortion (which may or may not be moral on other grounds), but its legality, i.e., the absolute right of the mother to have an abortion. What we are concerned with in this book is people’s rights to do or not do various things, not whether they should or should not exercise such rights. Thus, we would argue that every person has the right to purchase and consume Coca-Cola from a willing seller, not that any person should or should not actually make such a purchase. "
“If a woman has sex voluntarily then she has no right to abort the child.”
Having sex and becoming pregnant are not the same thing. Sex Ed 101.
“If she is raped and then gets pregnant she still has no right to abort the child because she is denying homesteading of the child by not waiting until it gets out of the womb and is up for adoption.”
Nope. Maybe you should investigate other possible methods before you come to your conclusion. No? lol
Having sex and becoming pregnant are not the same thing. Sex Ed 101.
“Everyone I’ve known to have a child I thought they should have had an abortion based on that they were far from ready from ever having and raising a child.”
And yet that is a non sequitur. Just because they aren’t fit to raise the child, doesn’t mean it has to be killed.
It’s unfortunate, but I think the Libertarian stance on abortion is woefully under-developed. It isn’t, however, for a lack of trying. Evictionism seems to be the “best” or most fair, but still seems like it’s missing something. I guess it just comes down the the difficulty in separating personal feelings on the subject with what can be reconciled with Libertarian law. The idea that a fetus can be removed from a womb (even in a manner that is least harmful to the fetus) for any reason and the fetus just then dies of “natural causes” has never set well with me. I don’t believe the woman should ever be forced to carry the child to full-term against her will, but it still nags at my conscience.
Ok a few things. First, a contract can’t be made with a non entity. So even if you had sex voluntarily, there would be noone that you’ve made any type of agreement with other than perhaps the father.
Second, the question of the eviction leading to the death of the evicted. I think a more apt comparison would be, if there was a drowning man, and you were riding in your boat. If you invited him in, and then decided you no longer wanted him in your boat. You would be well within your rights to kick him out, so long as his condition lead to what was the condition before hand. So no picking up a guy in a boat, and then kicking him off into shark infested water type thing. No kicking people out of planes. In the case of the fetus, non living is exactly the condition they were in before pregnancy, and your eviction of them leading to that same state is precisely how eviction of any type would work
EDIT: I don’t believe that in the production stage it’s a human.
This is a problem with the eviction stance. It assumes that the unborn is a human with a right to its own life.
So the rapist is now a father figure?
Father figure??? No. The biological father… Yes.
I don’t think the rapist cared whether or not his victim became pregnant out of his aggression. What the rapist thinks at this point is of no concern (I don’t think a rapist would actually believe that his victim should raise his child, if so he’s more sick than originally thought). The child has a right to its own life, but what human has a right to life at the expense of another, especially one that is unwanted?
If we assumed the unborn is a human with a right to its own life then all this is irrelevant. Its a rights conflict between the mother and child.