And because he has contract obligations (such as caring for his wife when she is ill, and if perhaps she is diagnosed with a mental illness, she becomes his charge) perhaps then he can not allow her to take the suicidal action because she is not in a mentally capable state to make rational decisions? Among other things.

But perhaps I am thinking about this too much.

I just have a concern for your example. If this women were unmarried and had no other parties in participation your arguments seem thought provoking at least. But because there are other factors that should be, and can be considered, I do not see how the women can be justified in the supposed actions she takes when so many other factors can be taken into consideration.

And because he has contract obligations (such as caring for his wife when she is ill, and if perhaps she is diagnosed with a mental illness, she becomes his charge) perhaps then he can not allow her to take the suicidal action because she is not in a mentally capable state to make rational decisions? Among other things.

But perhaps I am thinking about this too much.

I just have a concern for your example. If this women were unmarried and had no other parties in participation your arguments seem thought provoking at least. But because there are other factors that should be, and can be considered, I do not see how the women can be justified in the supposed actions she takes when so many other factors can be taken into consideration.

This is not to say life isn't sacred, not to say laws and morals don't talk about many of the same issues, not to say that babies aren't special, but these are all outside of the scope of the discussion. I will repeat, we must focus on what the law should be.

To highlight, where I think you've gone wrong, consider this example:

A fine young lady, unmarried, no real close friends, lives with her parents. One day the roof of the family's house collapses on her. When the parents come home they see what has happened and rush her to the hospital. The doctor's say she's going to need to be on life support. [you see where this is going] The lady has no one but her parents to take care of her and she will die. Are the parents allowed to take her off life support?

Now you can add all the sugar coating detal you want (maybe mom and dad built the house, mom took a sledgehammer to the walls a couple weeks ago, etc…) the main point is clear: does one have the right to live at the expense of another just because they're dependent. The answer is a simple no. No one has the right to live at the expense of another. Period.

Your other arguments fall apart just as readily. The Nonagression Axiom applies only to consenting adults (first of all) and even if it did apply, you've used it backwards. It is the fetus who imposes upon the mother first. It's violated the mother's right to her property, the right to her body, right to her life, and taken resources even without the consent of the mother. And this is all before the mother has even considered abortion. It is your fetus who is the aggressor, John.

Sanctioned irresponsibility? Personal Freedom? Liberty? Justice? Somehow denegrates an entire class of people? These are all fluffy concepts, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. If the mother wants to evict her kid and goes to hospital to try to have them remove it as safely and humanely as possible (which my “evictionism” is advocating), then where exactly is the irresponsibility? Is it the act of consensual sex? And your solution?

What personal freedom and liberty exist for a child who can neither be free nor has any will to speak of? Where is the injustice in upholding property rights? Or is allowing homeless people to take over wherehouses, allowing teenagers to sleep in unrented houses, allowing starving children to steal from groceries all ok? See, here is your difference in law and morals. Morally I would say all of the above acts are 100% justified. Legally they are all 100% unacceptable.

And still this is all beside the point. As I made the case (and will say again) if a pregnant woman in allowed to legally kill herself, if the parents of a child on life support are allowed to pull the plug, abortion (in the form of my “evictionism” and not some straw man) must be allowed.

In order to properly address this issue, we need to temporarily separate your notion of “eviction” and “tenancy” from the argument. These words are nothing more than fuzz used to justify the act of abortion as they distract the more important values at hand.

What happened to personal liberty, responsibility, and freedom? If we are operating under the assumption that life begins when both haploids meet, then why does the pro-abortion argument have no problem denying life, liberty, and freedom from an unborn child? Sure, one may argue that the child is infringing upon the rights of a mother (to kill herself?) but this is true to the very nature of pregnancy. One cannot claim to hold absolute sovereignty over oneself when there is a dependent, separate entity completely distinct from the mother. Besides, couldn’t an equally valid argument be made that the mother is infringing upon the rights of the fetus to move about freely? Isn’t the mother forcefully enslaving the child and therefore should be cut down to uphold the child’s rights? Clearly we can see the absurdity in this argument when such rights given to the mother are instead given to the child.

What happened to personal responsibility? Granted, I am conflicted to include this subjective argument, but it must at least be mentioned that the vast majority of abortions occur because the mother said she wasn’t ready to have a child, or did not have enough money to raise it. How can someone who supports such a tenet justify removing an unwanted child due to the irresponsible actions of other people? It makes little to no sense to sanction aggressive action towards an innocent based upon the mistakes of others. This is selective freedom – which imposes aggression on a defenseless unborn human.

What happened to the principle of nonaggression? Abortion is the polar opposite of nonaggression. As a result of the parent’s own irresponsibility, a decision can be unilaterally made on behalf of a child’s life that obviously has no say in the matter whatsoever. Sanctioning abortion is sanctioning aggression, and gives the rights and privileges to some (mothers) while removing the rights and harming others (children).

Abortion is aggressive, it promotes sanctioned irresponsibility, and it denies personal freedom, liberty, and justice to a weaker (inconvenient) class of people. How much further from the ideology can one support? Don’t be so quick to buy into the “private property” view of the argument, for it quickly derails the more important *ethical* inconveniences presented.

In order to properly address this issue, we need to temporarily separate your notion of “eviction” and “tenancy” from the argument. These words are nothing more than fuzz used to justify the act of abortion as they distract the more important values at hand.

What happened to personal liberty, responsibility, and freedom? If we are operating under the assumption that life begins when both haploids meet, then why does the pro-abortion argument have no problem denying life, liberty, and freedom from an unborn child? Sure, one may argue that the child is infringing upon the rights of a mother (to kill herself?) but this is true to the very nature of pregnancy. One cannot claim to hold absolute sovereignty over oneself when there is a dependent, separate entity completely distinct from the mother. Besides, couldn’t an equally valid argument be made that the mother is infringing upon the rights of the fetus to move about freely? Isn’t the mother forcefully enslaving the child and therefore should be cut down to uphold the child’s rights? Clearly we can see the absurdity in this argument when such rights given to the mother are instead given to the child.

What happened to personal responsibility? Granted, I am conflicted to include this subjective argument, but it must at least be mentioned that the vast majority of abortions occur because the mother said she wasn’t ready to have a child, or did not have enough money to raise it. How can someone who supports such a tenet justify removing an unwanted child due to the irresponsible actions of other people? It makes little to no sense to sanction aggressive action towards an innocent based upon the mistakes of others. This is selective freedom – which imposes aggression on a defenseless unborn human.

What happened to the principle of nonaggression? Abortion is the polar opposite of nonaggression. As a result of the parent’s own irresponsibility, a decision can be unilaterally made on behalf of a child’s life that obviously has no say in the matter whatsoever. Sanctioning abortion is sanctioning aggression, and gives the rights and privileges to some (mothers) while removing the rights and harming others (children).

Abortion is aggressive, it promotes sanctioned irresponsibility, and it denies personal freedom, liberty, and justice to a weaker (inconvenient) class of people. How much further from the ideology can one support? Don’t be so quick to buy into the “private property” view of the argument, for it conveniently derails the more important *ethical* inconveniences presented.

I think it is important that we separate what it is I am going for in this case (that is what the law “should” say) and what it has been mistaken for (morality). I am in no way saying killing yourself is good and killing babies are good (I mean, they're just a bunch of vagrant squaters right?). I am not saying any of that.

My argument is simply that because it can be seen that the baby is violating the mother's “right to life” in this sense shown by how the baby violates her “right to death” that the argument that abortion unfairly violates the baby's right to life is ineffective. The mother and the child are mutually violating each other's right to life to the same extent.

Well, what are we then to do? We must see what other rights are being violated. The mother provides food and oxygen and whatnot for her kid. Perfectly fine when it's perfectly voluntary. But supposing the lady no longer wants to give the kid food and oxygen and whatnot…well then this is a clear cut case for someone living at the expense of another without the other's consent. Certainly morally justifiable from the fetus's point of view. Certainly understandable as a measure to live when there appears no other way to. But how is it that we balk at this scenario when it's a Marxist saying it yet not when it goes along with our preconceived notion of “right” and “wrong.”

We must look beyond morals and beyond what we would do in particular situations. If we are to add anything of substance to this debate we must realize that our task is strictly limited to what the law “ought” to say and not what people “ought” to do.

The problem I find with this conclusion is that 1) a womb's private property rights are being violated with a child as much as my swinging fist is being violated by your face and 2) during the time a woman is pregnant, the unborn child has an equal claim of the womb for it is the only option it was given to live. The mother signed a contract on behalf of the child (since, after all, it could merely be a cluster of cells at this point) to ensure it develops into a human. A breach of this contract holds the woman liable to negligence, just as a day care company could be held liable for beating a child with a baseball bat. Granted, the child getting beat to death does not hold a right to life, but surely the company has the responsibility to ensure the life of that child while it is on the premise.