Saturday, September 08, 2012

Evictionism, Babies Trespassing In the Womb?

Walter Block wrote a blog post and posted a video at Lew Rockwell's Blog concerning abortion. He has tried to come up with a third way to discuss the issue. He wrote:

1. The unborn fetus is trespassing into the womb of the woman.
2. The rights of all fetuses are equal.
3. Therefore, the only right choice would be evicting the fetus. Killing it would be wrong.

Here is the video.

As a Christian, who is in the Libertarian camp, I must start with God's revelation. As a Christian, I must bow to the Lordship of Christ and His revelation first and foremost. Therefore, I find this argument most unhelpful. Although he imagines he is doing something different from the Pro-choice crowd, notice his stated premise that the fetus is trespassing into the womb. This premise is exactly the problem the Feminist movement has. Both thoughts are rejecting the created order.

It is the Creator of us all who has designed the creation. It is the Creator who has designed the family and how it is to come about and exist and perpetuate. Feminists have admittedly rejected the created order and have become irrational.

If Walter Block is going to argue for private property rights, does he not ground such a belief in the created order or natural law? Is this natural law or morality not established by the Creator? I realize that Libertarians make private property rights central in their political philosophy, but how do we do that to the exclusion of the family?

Several times throughout his video he mentions that this is a very complex issue. This seems to be synonymous with complicated. I'm sorry. There is nothing complex or complicated about the family. The nature of the family and how it is to be perpetuated is anything but difficult to understand. I'm not saying there are not difficult issues, but the basics I don't think are too difficult.

Now he does offer the case of rape as a violation of property rights into the woman's womb. The problem is that this is argued as a parallel for a normal situation of propagation. I hardly think there is any comparison. Another man's child that has invaded a family illegally and immorally through an heinous act should never be compared to the God given parameters.

To say the child is innocent does not mean it will by necessity have a free ride in this life. For instance, if a man driving down the street runs over my child playing in the street does not mean that I, the innocent dad, will somehow not pay for that accident. In the same way, one could argue that the child, though innocent of the act of rape, may end up being injured as a result of the crime committed by the rapist. But most in our nation, including Mr. Block, do not believe the innocent should pay for the crimes of their parents. So I will stop there for now.

Mr Block then uses a Utilitarian argument to save babies via technology. He also explains that the Prolife position is losing therefore we must do something different. But I can hardly understand how employing an ungrounded philosophical/utilitarian argument is a better route? When a culture rejects the created order, thereby suppressing the truth about its creator, from a Christian perspective, we should not turn to "reason" as some new ultimate authority to save us, but instead, expect the judgment of God. Is that not what we are seeing in our culture?

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Block. I think we must argue more persuasively by appealing to sound argumentation based in natural law. Our children are being raised in state schools which will always teach the morality of the State. Since the morality of the State is believed to be derived from itself and not the Creator, the suppression of the created order will only be further suppressed, creating a spiraling downward of rational thought and a populace easily controlled by the State.

If we are going to be practical or utilitarian, then perhaps the best and most practical way to reduce abortions is to rid our society of state schools.


Terry Hulsey said...

Dr. Block would have some footing if the critical distinction in the abortion issue were property rights. But an examination of his position on his own terms shows that this is not the case.
Under his proposed evictionism, a woman's earliest abortion (read "eviction" in his terminology) is limited by her ability to find a doctor to pontificate on the viability of the "evictee." Putting aside monetary consideration from the woman, this doctor's sole standard would, in Dr. Block's analysis, be life.
This standard puts us right back at the current state of the debate: At what point does life begin?
Interestingly, his formulation is the mirror image of the best compromise advanced so far, the suggestion of Carl Sagan ( Sagan, as he must, focuses on the definition of life -- specifically human life. He argues that human life begins with human brain activity, at about 6 weeks. But whereas Block forbids abortion prior to viability, Sagan forbids it after.
This inversion would progressively encourage abortion as the fetus became more like a living, breathing child, a very peculiar state of affairs. The idiosyncratic use of rentier terminology fails to sanitize what could become a cruel practice indeed.

Jason said...

I always imagined that parental moral obligation to ensure to the best of their abilities the nurturing and survival of their offspring was the ultimate consistent natural law position. Also that the unborn has a natural right to the womb. Of course this is basic Christian principles as well.

Howard Fisher said...

Another problem with evictionism is that it is inconsistent with itself. If the child is trespassing in the womb, and say the baby is born at home, does it have a right to be at the location it is born?

This is why private property rights must be made consistent with the natural order/law based in creation. Once he denies the family as being a part of the created order, he denies the foundation for private property rights.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.