Examining the evictionist viewpoint of Walter Block
Abortion is among the most controversial issues ever to enter the history of the American political arena. For the moment, it may be difficult to believe that this heated debate will ever reach a satisfactory resolution.
One party identifies themselves as "pro-choice," and believes a woman has an absolute right to reign over her own body. In a typical narrative of this position, abortion is reluctantly included within the realm of this principle. The termination of a pregnancy, they contend, should be safe, legal, and rare. In more extreme arguments, a human fetus is seen as a parasite, especially in the event of an unwanted pregnancy. To demand that a woman carry an unwanted fetus in her womb for nine months, they contend, is tantamount to slavery. Many pro-choicers want to keep abortion legalized, even in the third trimester. Those on the extreme pro-choice position face the difficult question, "what is the difference between a human fetus ten seconds prior to delivery, and ten seconds after?"
Opponents of abortion identify themselves as "pro-life," and believe abortion is an act of violence against a human being. Pro-lifers maintain that abortion violates the most fundamental right of all - life. It is commonplace for a pro-lifer to contend that life begins at conception. This view contends that for the sake of the human fetus, it is an act of personal responsibility to deliver the child, and offers adoption as the compassionate alternative. The most radical among the pro-life movement maintain this position, even in cases of rape, incest, and cases that endanger the very life of the mother. Those on the extreme against abortion fall trap to being anti-abortion, but not necessarily "pro-life," as the conflicts of maternal health are inevitably brought up.
These views may seem irreconcilable, and consistency offers little-to-no middle ground.
As the old Thatcherite saying goes, if you stand in the middle, you will get run over by both sides.
However, there is a view on this issue that is unjustly overlooked. It is known in some circles as "evictionism," conceived by the libertarian social theorist, Walter Block.
Evictionism accepts the basic assertions of both camps - a woman owns her own body, and abortion in its current form is an act of violence against another human being. It applies the non-aggression principle and property rights to the current debate, as these principles serve as a guiding light on many other issues. In Block's view, the unwanted human fetus is a trespasser, and is to be evicted from the womb without an act of harm. Abortion, he observes, is eviction plus murder.
In the present case, it is the contention of this article, new medical technology will "solve" the abortion problem. But this would obtain only if pro-lifers borrow a leaf from their abolitionist forebears. That is, they must work morally and philosophically to pave the way for this eventuality. The thesis of the present article is that, on a pragmatic level, the only way to resolve this vexing question, in a way that will satisfy both sides - at least partially - is to rely on new medical technology. These breakthroughs will, hopefully, allow the pregnant woman who wishes to exercise her rights to free choice one additional option: to rid herself of the burden of bearing the fetus without endangering its life. This is not a pipedream because research in this area is proceeding apace. According to a report in The New Republic, scientists are perfecting a process called "ectogenesis" that allows a fetus to gestate in an artificial womb, separate from its biological mother.
More controversially…
The word "abort" is used in different ways. It is absolutely crucial that a distinction be made between killing and eviction. This future technology would allow the individual to do the one without the other. If and when it becomes possible, the individual would have an obligation, similar to the one owed to the person you woke up in bed with in the attached kidney case, not to kill, but merely to evict. If this were not done, it would be similar to abandoning the baby in the woods.
I seek to "tweak" the case for eviction without harm, given that there are a few pitfalls that our current technological resources cannot provide for. As some of Block's opponents contest, to evict an unborn child without the assurance of a legal guardian to keep it alive is comparable to throwing a rowdy passenger off of an airplane in mid-air, rather than landing the plane. I agree with this assertion wholeheartedly.
Personally, I cannot accept the view that a human fetus is a trespasser. The question we fail to ask is, who conceived it in the first place? In most cases, the woman voluntarily consented to sexual activity, knowing full-well the risks involved. And why is the value of a human fetus so subjective? If a woman wants the child, it's a gift from God. If not, it's a parasite, a tumor, or a worthless body organ, in need of removal through any given means. The characteristics of the fetus are not altered or determined by the mind of a mother.
While some aspects of my personal opinion are certainly debatable, my aim is to broaden the case for artificial transportation (my choice alternative to the phrase, "eviction"), even for those who may dismiss my personal view on life and conception. Maybe you will prefer Block's terminology; maybe you'll prefer mine. At the end of the day, the disagreement is over style, rather than substance.
Some on the political left - such as Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, and Dick Gephardt, to name a few – seemed to alter their initial stance on abortion to suit the party line, if for no other foreseeable reason. On the other side, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush dumped their formerly cherished notions and adopted the pro-life position. It is also worth noting the factions that seem to break from the reservation on this issue, but otherwise maintain their ideological purity. Among them are Feminists For Life, Republicans For Choice, and Libertarians For Life (although, aside from the Libertarian Party, the libertarian movement has no official stance on this issue).
The remedy for this entire debate consists of time and technology. Just as there are pacemakers for heart patients, "false teeth" for dental complications, and artificial limbs for those who have undergone amputation, I believe an artificial womb will be introduced, as well as a safe and effective procedure to transport the unborn fetus without harm.
As a staunch capitalist, I believe that open markets and profit-driven investments offer the most viable solutions to virtually every social ill, and the abortion issue does not have to be an exception.
As scientists take further steps towards this advancement, we can anticipate the bizzare alliance of pro-choicers and pro-lifers who once donated their resources to NARAL, Planned Parenthood, or the National Right to Life to make peace over the issue by investing towards this common goal. We can also anticipate these current special interest groups to make a desperate case against this as they seem to lose their legitimacy and political influence. And if this crystal ball of mine has a few cracks in it, maybe both will take (or fake) credit for the advancement we should all hope to see.
We might expect National Right to Life and like-minded groups to spend more time stressing personal responsibility than fetal rights in this effort. It may be an archaic and utopian argument, as our social fabric seemed to decline as contraception in all its various forms became the norm, and a sexually permissive society has been the inevitable result ever since.
While the pro-life position has not been exclusively advocated by Evangelical Christians, this faction has undoubtedly become a central political force of the New Right, in addition to a religious one. The influence of Evangelicals over the abortion issue has led some to mischaracterize the pro-life stance as solely religious in nature.
Conservative culture warriors risk losing their audience - as well as a sense of reality - when they call for a "spiritual revival," as though the Fall of Man took place some time in the 1960s, and that five Supreme Court justices have it in their power to usher in that vision. Arguably, the culture indeed experienced a downturn during the Sexual Revolution, but the law - being a separate issue - only followed course. No government entity has it in its power to establish cultural revival. Only the people can do that. I believe the divisions over the abortion issue will be healed - not through a magical government document or a sudden burst of conscience on a national level - but through scientific innovation and the marketplace.
While there is no shortage of lip-service from the political right about our founding principles, there are plenty of times when talk is cheap. When abortionist George Tiller was murdered in a house of worship, I witnessed many conservatives praising the act on an internet forum. Strangely enough, a pro-life organization had been in the process of building a case against Tiller, alleging unlawful abortions. It didn't matter to the murder apologists. Ultimately, we must conclude, neither does due process. Liberals are correctly criticized when they ignore the Constitution. Conservatives, save the small constitutional minority, are just as deserving.
Many conservatives blindly accept abortion as a federal issue, blatantly disregarding the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Ironically, it was the Roe v. Wade ruling that transferred the issue to the federal government! How has that worked out for pro-lifers? State-level restrictions have been repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court, that's how. Prior to Roe v. Wade, very few states even legalized abortion. Those that allowed it imposed significant restrictions under what circumstances they can be performed. All it would take to transfer the issue back to the states is a majority vote by Congress. Republican demagogues - who rely on this issue to buy votes - have no interest in doing this.
Some in the pro-choice movement have linked abortion rights to environmental pieties, presuming that limits on the human population reduce pollution and the overall carbon footprint. However, consistency begs progressives to apply the same reasoning to capital punishment and pre-emptive warfare, which is unthinkable, to say the least.
This line of reasoning is also economically nonsensical. The greater our population, the more innovation society will experience. More scientists and inventors means bigger steps towards maximizing the value and lifespan of our natural resources.
Those who do not consider a human fetus to be viable - so long as it is undesired – tend to mischaracterize their pro-life opponents as “against women’s rights,” as though the pro-life movement went hand-in-hand with the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. It’s a convenient smokescreen to be sure, at least until you are asked to intellectualize the broader accusation beyond the scope of abortion. Indeed, a woman’s privacy should never be violated under any circumstance, unless a greater natural right is at stake. If we could relieve a woman from an unwanted pregnancy without harming the fetus, we would. And we should.
The left-feminists link many “women’s issues” to “social justice.” Small world. I’m a feminist, too.
“Women’s issues” are at the forefront of economic freedom and individual rights, and the left-feminists aren’t connecting the dots.
Should the state be able to force a woman to buy health insurance? Should the government demand her BMI, although it clearly ignores her privacy rights? Should government spend tax dollars harrassing women on how to eat and exercise? Can they strip women of their right to keep and bear arms? Should women be drafted into the military, as Ruth Bader Ginsberg has advocated for? Or conscript them to jury duty in utter disregard for their professional and domestic life? Shouldn’t the state trust women to make the right decision for her child’s education?
You get the idea.
It is also a bizarre development that those who normally decry censorship - at least when the political right is not victimized - would go out of their way to censor pro-life groups. If a fetus was never a human being to begin with, why the shame in seeing a picture of one that was aborted? Often, these same people want to mandate vaccinations on the entire population, and have the government decide who can receive treatment in a state-run health care system with limited means of accomodation. So much for "privacy." Of course, no such concern was raised with regard to the war in Iraq.
The adoption aspect of this issue is not to be taken lightly. In a more perfect world, it would be considered an act of child abandonment. But unlike the utopian inclinations left and right, an evict-to-adopt policy is only advocated as a realistic - albeit, reluctant - way of dealing with a broken world.
Indeed, some personal responsibility is sacrificed whenever a parent gives a child up for adoption. Obviously, more abortions would occur without making adoption available, whether legally or not.
I envision an evict-to-adopt policy where each party involved the conception of the fetus is to make a good faith effort in finding an adoptive family. A private entity may develop in assisting this arrangement. Until this is achieved, the biological parents must cover a form of child support to provide for the upkeep in the artificial womb, including nutritional needs. In cases of rape, a significant tax exemption would be offered to the victim, far exceeding any expense for the artificial transportation procedure, womb hospitality, and nutrition. If the state can force a woman to pay taxes in exchange for her protection, it must be held liable for failing to do so. If convicted, the perpetrator would be on the hook to provide financial support until the child is declared an adult.
If this does not satisfy those demanding personal responsibility at any cost, I’m not sure anything will. If this fails to satisfy those constantly focused on cases outside of “abortion on demand,” I am open to a humane alternative.
Perhaps some "women's rights" organizations will remain outraged as their precious aggression rights are stripped away as the result of scientific breakthroughs and the social implications that follow. Planned Parenthood and NARAL may contend that there are too few willing to adopt, and that abortion must remain an option to make every child a wanted child.
The folly in this argument is two-fold.
Current adoption laws are a barrier to this case, and must be repealed. The bureaucratic red tape drastically restricts the number of willing adoptive parents and agencies to bear fruition. The cost of private adoption can range from $5,000 to $40,000, or more. Much of this depends on the state in which citizens reside. Like a vaccine thrown out of the market, the "cure" does more harm than good.
Social conservatives, of course, will rail about same-sex adoption. To be sure, religious organizations should never be forced to honor it within their jurisdiction, if we are to maintain any concept of religious freedom, whatsoever. Regardless, it is misguided to suggest that homosexuals seeking to adopt are linked to pedophilia, at least in the vast majority of cases.
Would the Judgment of Solomon – whom, according to the Bible, was the wisest man who ever lived – be such a bad example to cite in search for wisdom and civil resolution? After all, Solomon declared a prostitute to be the rightful mother of the child, and allowed her to raise it. As undesirable as that arrangement may have been, it is a broken world we are living in. You can suffer for your pieties as you wish, but an innocent child shouldn’t have to.
On the left side of the aisle, "every child is a wanted child" can be seen as simple demagoguery as we examine the unfortunate issue of crimes committed against children by their own biological parents that continue to proceed. Children are denied basic human necessities in a world with or without abortion. Abuse, neglect, and the like did not cease to exist as a result of Roe v. Wade.
As the old slogans meet their fate, new ones are sure to arise. I cannot predict that which is yet to be conceived, but I can predict one thing - the abortion debate will end, and the eviction debate will begin.
As the scientific advancement is made towards artificial transportation (er, "eviction without harm"), many of the bitter tirades back and forth will die out. At best, the debate will become more of an economic issue than that of a culture war. The left will make the case that government has to devote a massive sum of tax dollars towards this goal, while the right will (hopefully) favor the free flow of capital, more accessibility for adoptive parents, and stress voluntary contributions and free market activity in order to satisfy this achievement. As usual, the real solutions will not come from politicians. They will come from trained scientists and the marketplace.
Sure, one side will accuse the other of being uncompassionate and hypocritical, while the other side will revile the level of government involvement that is demanded.
But both will share a common goal, and that is not the case on today's political battlefield.
No comments:
Post a Comment