• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evictionism; a right to remove the fetus, but not kill it.

Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
316
Reaction score
117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on Evictionism.

As we all already know, the subject of abortion is a clash on the right to life and the right to property.

On life we have various definitions on where life begins and what life means, brought to us by ethics, science and law.

On choice we have the uterus as the womans property, of which she has a right to.

Evictionism is a right to remove the fetus from the mother but not remove it to kill it.

When someone trespasses on your property, you tell them to go away and if they leave you cannot assault them. Is a fetus "trespassing" ? Legally, I can probably say yes because you can invite someone over, change your mind and tell them to leave. But does this give you the right to kill a trespasser who cannot discern that what they are doing is trespassing?

In a future where removal of a fetus can be done at any time and be kept alive and grow healthy, evictionism would be pro-life. Now it's just a cloudy compromise on for choice on the right of the mothers ownership over her uterus.

The Free Market Case Against Abortion | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty
The Humble Libertarian: Libertarianism and Abortion: The Problem With Walter Block's "Evictionism"
Libertarians for Life - Abortion, Choice, and Libertarian Principles
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,511
Reaction score
50,111
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The unborn baby was "invited in" by engaging in behavior known to result in pregnancy.

When the baby can be "Evicted" without killing him or her, then there might be a case for it.
 

prometeus

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
24,484
Reaction score
10,410
Location
Over the edge...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The unborn baby was "invited in" by engaging in behavior known to result in pregnancy.
That has been repeatedly shown to be a flawed line of reasoning. It still fails as an argument.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,511
Reaction score
50,111
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That has been repeatedly shown to be a flawed line of reasoning. It still fails as an argument.

You consider it flawed, I consider it valid.
 

iangb

Lurker
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
2,112
Location
Birmingham, UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The unborn baby was "invited in" by engaging in behavior known to result in pregnancy.
Leaving your windows open is known to result in trespass (and often burglary, too). Are you 'inviting them in', and thus cannot evict them?
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Leaving your windows open is known to result in trespass (and often burglary, too). Are you 'inviting them in', and thus cannot evict them?

A better analogy would be in having a swimming pool in your yard without a fence or anything else to keep children from wandering in and drowning.

And yes,... people who have done so have been charged for their negligence before.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Sure, I'm fore it - in a future where an unwanted child can develope outside the womb, sure. . . I would also hope that in that future we'd have a means of actually caring for them, raising them, nurturing them and so on . . . if not then we're not really doing the whole entire 'thing' to the fullest.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,511
Reaction score
50,111
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You can consider it anything you wish it still remains invalid. Your consideration does not negate that reality.

He said, she said... that what these abortion dramas usually devolve into, and why I rarely bother with them anymore.

Your arguments mean nothing to someone who looks at it from my perspective. My points are meaningless to someone who looks at it as you do.

Not much point unless you're in the mood for a good round of "Is not", "Is too!" :mrgreen:
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
How is this thread not a tacit recognition of the fact that a child's life begins at conception?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
How is this thread not a tacit recognition of the fact that a child's life begins at conception?

Whymake 'when life begins' even a part of this entire issue?

You and I have debated this before - "when" life begins isn't always a component in "why" many women don't want to carry a child.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Leaving your windows open is known to result in trespass (and often burglary, too). Are you 'inviting them in', and thus cannot evict them?

So are you saying that having sex is like leaving a window open?
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Whymake 'when life begins' even a part of this entire issue?

You and I have debated this before - "when" life begins isn't always a component in "why" many women don't want to carry a child.

It is, however, valid to when her right to terminate ends.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
It is, however, valid to when her right to terminate ends.

No, what's valid in the right to terminate (when this ends) is whether or not the baby can live independently from it's mother. . . even with medical help.
So by having an alternative means of incubation-type support we're just bumping up (or back, however you want to say it) the line at which the child can live without the need for the mother as a carrier.

None of this has anything to do with when life begins.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
No, what's valid in the right to terminate (when this ends) is whether or not the baby can live independently from it's mother. . . even with medical help.
So by having an alternative means of incubation-type support we're just bumping up (or back, however you want to say it) the line at which the child can live without the need for the mother as a carrier.

None of this has anything to do with when life begins.

Oh, I see what you're saying. I agree.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
How is this thread not a tacit recognition of the fact that a child's life begins at conception?

Whymake 'when life begins' even a part of this entire issue?

You and I have debated this before - "when" life begins isn't always a component in "why" many women don't want to carry a child.

Hey all I did was make an observation and ask a question.

You didn't have to respond to it. No-one does.
 

iangb

Lurker
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
2,112
Location
Birmingham, UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A better analogy would be in having a swimming pool in your yard without a fence or anything else to keep children from wandering in and drowning.

And yes,... people who have done so have been charged for their negligence before.
So if you had a swimming pool without a fence or anything else, and you woke up one morning to find children playing in it, you would have no right to get them all to go away?

EDIT: And I'm fairly sure that, in this analogy of yours, using a condom (it's called a 'barrier method' for a reason!) would be analogous to putting up a biiig fence around your swimming pool - even one with guard dogs (spermicide) and everything. You're left with only condemning abortion for those who have unprotected sex - and good luck proving that one!

How is this thread not a tacit recognition of the fact that a child's life begins at conception?
Working within a framework. If you believe something o be true, I can discuss the consequences of that even if I don't agree with you.

Incidentally, if a ZEF could be removed from the womb and was then able to carry out life processes (growth, etc) on it's own, that wouuld be a good sign that it was 'alive' as a human, if not as a person. Science isn't quite there yet, however.

EDIT2
Mac said:
So are you saying that having sex is like leaving a window open?
More like having sex is like owning property - people get burgled even if all their windows are closed. You could probably liken unprotected sex to leaving a window open, though - it's going to increase the chance of a trespassers and a bunch of bugs might fly into your house and take residence, so it's often a pretty stupid thing to do. You can still evict trespassers though, even if you left a window open.
 
Last edited:

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
So if you had a swimming pool without a fence or anything else, and you woke up one morning to find children playing in it, you would have no right to get them all to go away?

Sure you would.

What you would not have the right to do is to kill them in the process.

EDIT: And I'm fairly sure that, in this analogy of yours, using a condom (it's called a 'barrier method' for a reason!) would be analogous to putting up a biiig fence around your swimming pool - even one with guard dogs (spermicide) and everything.

Yep pretty much as I have stated numerous times before.

You're left with only condemning abortion for those who have unprotected sex - and good luck proving that one!

That's not quite true; as the swimming pool analogy doesn't quite equate the "assumed" responsibility for the risk that having sex does.

However,... to better make this point,... lets say you did have a pool,... with a biiiig fence (condom) and guard dogs (spermacide) and one morning you looked out and there (despite all your barriers and intentions) are kids swimming in your pool.

You wouldn't have the right to kill them for tresspassing. Now would you?
 
Last edited:

iangb

Lurker
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
2,112
Location
Birmingham, UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sure you would.

What you would not have the right to do is to kill them in the process.
Then, given the topic of this thread, your analogy is an entirely inaccurate one.

I thought that was your 'rape' version of the analogy?

You search link doesn't work for me, so I can't comment on it's contents.

That's not quite true; as the swimming pool analogy doesn't quite equate the "assumed" responsibility for the risk that having sex does.

However,... to better make this point,... lets say you did have a pool,... with a biiiig fence (condom) and guard dogs (spermacide) and one morning you looked out and there (despite all your barriers and intentions) are kids swimming in your pool.

You wouldn't have the right to kill them for tresspassing. Now would you?
According to The Castle Doctrine - and as long as not evicting them would lead to them taking your food (burglary) - you would do.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the CD; but that's another story. I'm not a fan of viewing ZEFs as 'children', either.
 

prometeus

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
24,484
Reaction score
10,410
Location
Over the edge...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A better analogy would be in having a swimming pool in your yard without a fence or anything else to keep children from wandering in and drowning.

And yes,... people who have done so have been charged for their negligence before.
What about the instances where there IS a fence as in the use of accepted method of contraception?
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
What about the instances where there IS a fence as in the use of accepted method of contraception?

Do you mean; "when you knew the risk (that no protection is %100) and you took the chance anyway?"

What part of "assumed the risk" are you not understanding?
 

prometeus

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
24,484
Reaction score
10,410
Location
Over the edge...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you mean; "when you knew the risk (that no protection is %100) and you took the chance anyway?"

What part of "assumed the risk" are you not understanding?

So now small children know about asumed risk? Pull your head out...
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,228
Reaction score
14,230
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I would say that evictionism makes more sense if the argument is about a woman's right to end a pregnancy. Why does she have the right to kill what is in her womb? The fetus is not her body and it is not her property nor her life.
 
Top Bottom