I’m not Pro-Life or Pro-Choice; I’m Pro-Eviction!

[jmervyn]

jmervyn:

I am frankly not concerned about the traumatization of a woman who decides to have an abortion. That is an easily avoided situation -- don’t go through with it. What I am worried about is limiting the number of people who would agree to take care of the evicted fetus because of their concerns about future legal challenges from the biological mother. Making such challenges legally impossible would go a long way in alleviating this fear.

That's a sensible concern, but my counter-point is that it is in itself nearly impossible. I live near NYC - people here can and will sue you for looking sideways at them. Lawfare as practiced by "blue state" types is not about legality, but about intimidation.

Plus, wouldn’t this practice go a long way in preventing such traumatization? The biological mother would now have the option to get rid of the fetus immediately without being responsible for its death. Plus, I love the fact that you would have groups like Planned Parenthood being forced to facilitate the saving of the lives of fetuses rather than facilitating their deaths.

Agreed, but like I said, cutting into PP's revenue stream is precisely why it won't happen.

The trauma is real, and I think it wrong to underestimate how deep the drive of motherhood actually is -
"Abortions cause psychological damage. A 2002 peer-reviewed study published by the Southern Medical Journal of more than 173,000 American women found that women who aborted were 154% more likely to commit suicide than women who carried to term. [26] An Apr. 1998 Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology study on men whose partners had abortions found that 51.6% of the men reported regret, 45.2% felt sadness, and 25.8% experienced depression."

What group is going to argue that a woman has the right to kill her viable fetus? If they do argue such, then their real reason for supporting abortion would be revealed. They couldn’t argue that it was a woman’s rights issue; they would have to admit that they believe that abortions are necessary for such things like population control or for the elimination of the ‘less worthy’ from the human race. Let's see how well those type of arguments would resonate with the public.

I suppose I'm more cynical than you. Again, the PP mafia and those who benefit from their "efforts" would be the ones arguing/protesting, and they would likely use some sort of **** & bull claim about how this really is just another dimension of the War on Wimmunses.

I'm not saying that it's unreasonable - heck, as the Dr. you mentioned probably identified, it actually makes a far healthier revenue stream for medical practitioners (my wife attempted in vitro once and it cost almost $10K). The profit margin on this, or even adoption, is enough that PP should have suggested it themselves, decades ago. This isn't about wisdom, or caring, or even reason. It most certainly isn't about communicating legitimately with the public, or they wouldn't have managed to ban Silent Scream in more than one instance.

Edit - interesting, the accepted four-letter word for cockerel is filtered.

[Goryani]

Overall general thoughts, and in no particular order:

Steps to fulfilling this idea require government to codify and/or adjudicate subjects such as "gentlest manner possible." In other words, government will now be passing laws telling us which medical procedures can or can't be performed for which "ailment." Furthermore, government will de facto BAN research into alternative procedures since the alternative procedures will not be shown to be the gentlest manner possible. Libertarianism, this is not.

How is a prosecutor supposed to determine if a crime occurred in order to file charges? Are abortions going to be so regulated that each and every abortion must first receive approval from the government only after first proving an eviction is impossible? Libertarianism, this is not.

Our system of justice is based upon the theory of "innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt." See above for codifying and adjudicating "gentlest manner possible" issues. Additionally, how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt in an illegal abortion case? If the law says abortions are legal before 28 weeks (time period mentioned in Roe v Wade), what happens when a woman says the abortion happened at 27 weeks 6 days? How is this magical conception date determined? Not all fetus' develop at the same rate. Not all predicted conception dates are correct. Not all predicted birth dates are correct. If the law has enough teeth to prosecute anyone, it isn't Libertarianism. If the law is Libertarianism, it won't be able to prosecute anyone.

Who pays for a law with teeth? Not who pays for the eviction, but who pays for showing that an eviction isn't viable and therefore eligible for abortion? Either you place the burden on the person seeking the procedure, thereby increasing regulation and direct cost, or you place the burden everyone who isn't seeking the procedure though taxes. Libertarianism, this is not.

You can't show a particular fetus could be viable without trying it's viability. The premise of the definition requires attempting viability for ALL fetus'. Attempting viability for ALL fetus' is tantamount to a law stating that life begins at conception. Libertarianism, this is not.

Can citizens fill out forms to inform the government of suspected pregnant individuals so we can make sure they didn't have an illegal abortion? Under what branch of government will the Pregnancy Police be funded? Libertarianism, this is not.

Anyone who might possibly wish to participate in either an abortion or eviction at some undetermined point in the future must first register with the government. Every single privacy issue raised in Roe v. Wade still exists under the eviction idea. Libertarianism, this is not.

The current process of taking over responsibility for a human being (adoption) usually requires YEARS, not days. This idea, without massive regulation, sets up a near endless supply of fresh victims for habitual child abusers. No quippy libertarianism comment here. This is so sick there NEEDS to be regulation to prevent it.

No kidding about the years comment. Some data:
When adoptive parents begin the adoption process while the child is in utero, 54% of the adoptions happen before the child is 6 months or younger, 38% occur when the child is between 7 and 12 months, and 8% occur when the child is over 1 year old. These are after birth figures. In other words, the birth already happened.

For parents wishing to adopt a newborn child, here is the breakdown in time spent being matched with a pregnant mother carrying an unborn fetus:
Less than 3 months....................34%
4 to 6 months............................19%
7 to 12 months...........................20%
13 to 24 months.........................17%
Longer than 24 months...............10%

Who will be eligible to take responsibility for an evicted life? Sorry, trick question. We all know the pro-family groups won't sit idly by and watch the core family come under fire. Who will be allowed to take responsibility for an evicted life? Singes or married only? Homosexual or straight only? Clean criminal record? Pass a drug test? From good, clean stock? Articulate? IQ requirements? Enough money to pay for fees and permits (average adoption cost of newborn is $30,000 out of pocket expenses for adopting parents)?

It strikes me as odd that pro-lifers don't have to change at all. They can and will continue to subjugate unwed pregnant women and their children to discrimination or worse. They can and will fight to eliminate funding for specific Americans based on gender, race and socio-economic status. Don't get me wrong, there is a certain poetic justice in requiring pro-lifers to engage in behavior similar to stem-cell research (experiments to determine viability of a fetus will inevitably lead to the deaths of many fetus') in order to change the cutoff/distinction between abortion, eviction, and infanticide. But that poetic justice isn't real justice and it's certainly not Libertarianism.

No kidding here, the harshest side effect for pro-lifers is being told to STFU. We don't need to pass a law for that. Definitely not Libertarianism.

On the other hand, there appears to be many increased barriers for any woman who may wish to seek an abortion. They must register with the government before deciding to have an abortion or eviction, because of the wait time. They are subject to bureaucratic time constraints which can and will be manipulated by the pro-life crowd so as to minimize the number of abortions and evictions which occur. They must be prepared to establish compliance with eviction laws or risk McCarthy/Klein witch hunts.

The opportunity cost just doesn't seem advisable. How much time and money would it take to successfully prosecute an illegal abortion? Expert witnesses are usually paid by the hour/day and include time spent on the witness stand, preparing for the witness stand, and advising the prosecution. Several thousand dollars a day is not uncommon for a DNA expert. DNA results are vastly different (objective, more accurate, etc) than determining viability of a fetus. The expert witness will no doubt have hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans just to have the qualifications of being an expert witness. This is to counteract at least one party to an illegal abortion, the doctor performing the abortion, who also is likely to have hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans just to have the qualifications of performing an abortion. Without the prosecutorial expert witness, the doctor defendant just says the fetus was nonviable. False exoneration rate will be too high to be worth spending justice system money on.

Unless the jurors discount expert testimony and go with their long held convictions as told to them by their mothers or church at 3 years of age. In this case, false convictions will be too high to be worth spending justice system money on.

Those are my initial thoughts. Time to read the 46 page pdf.

Oh, one more thing...

This eviction idea will ultimately change nothing outside of increased regulation. Viability of a fetus will be a constantly moving yardstick. The time period of viability will change and change often, being subject to the whim of pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike. The waiting period between notification of intent to abort/evict and allowed abortion will change and change often, being subject to the whim of pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike. Other requirements, permits, fees, hoops, loopholes, direct costs, indirect costs, societal share and societal responsibility will change and change often, being subject to the whim of pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike. The king is dead long live the king.

The terminology used in the debate will change but the debate will continue. The idea won't work because those required to make it work (lawmakers, tax payers, voters) don't want it to work.

[Goryani]

I still feel that if you want to reduce the amount of abortions to the absolute minimum they can be, making sure everyone has easy, and preferably free, access to birth control methods (plural) is the only realistic way to achieve that. I know that goes right back into the rest of the political blender, but there it is. Abstinence programs repeatedly fail, and outlawing abortion would mostly result in roadtrips/riskier procedures rather than a reduction in abortions. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, or in this case, a pound of "leftovers".

Making life better for individuals involved in abortions or potential abortions is far and away the best course of action. They need hope. They need support. They need love. They don't need to be the victim of karmic justice.

Abortion is less dangerous than birth on your planet, Bob? Do tell...

Abortion may be less dangerous than eviction. I imagine it will be for a long long long time. Abortion is probably even "safer" for the health of the mother than giving birth. I wouldn't be surprised if the death/disability rate for medically supervised abortions is less than the death rate for all births. I'd be shocked if the opposite were true. Before the 20th century, childbirth was the leading cause of death for women.

You ain't just a-whistlin' Dixie. REALLY. (Finally found where the ex-"Gaijin Smash" blogs wound up)

There didn't seem to be a sexual gratification element on the part of the kids in that story. Raunchy but not perverse. Definitely some control issues and lack of allowing others to have personal space, but that would be just like western culture.

Now, as to your claim (and I have also heard other pro-choice advocates argue the same point) that “there would never be anywhere near enough people willing to take the fetus”; that’s highly debatable. According to this site, “In the USA, there are approximately two million infertile couples waiting to adopt, many times regardless of the child's medical problems such as Down Syndrome, Spina Bifida, HIV infection or terminally ill.”.

People who pay ~$30,000 per adoption are picky. The stats of adoption wait time for certain traits absolutely positively offers proof. Blonds are adopted faster. Girls are adopted faster. Mixed race adoption is roughly proportional to the ratio of racial balance in a state (better racial balance in a state means adoptive parents of the state are more likely to adopt a child of a different race).

To the people who are pro-life, any fetus that is saved from abortion is a good thing.

You're missing the real argument. Fervent pro-lifers are about as concerned with saving a fetus from abortion as a rapist is with having sex. If it were about sex, a rapist wouldn't rape. It's about control.

For the fervent pro-lifer, it's about dispensing karmic justice. Being the judge, jury, and executioner for wickedness. The joy of participating in God striking down Sodom and Gomorrah. How is it described? Ah yes, the walk of shame. The desire to punish the mother outweighs the desire to save an unborn, unnamed, unloved, unknown scrape of cells.

Are all pro-lifers this way? No and thank God. But too many are. Unfortunately, the abortion laws which are passed are almost universally supported by this brand of pro-lifer. Hardly a shock considering the contents and net effect of the laws.

What group is going to argue that a woman has the right to kill her viable fetus? If they do argue such, then their real reason for supporting abortion would be revealed. They couldn’t argue that it was a woman’s rights issue; they would have to admit that they believe that abortions are necessary for such things like population control or for the elimination of the ‘less worthy’ from the human race. Let's see how well those type of arguments would resonate with the public.

The converse is equally true. What group is going to argue they should be allowed to control what others do. If they do argue such, then their real reason for eliminating abortion would be revealed. They couldn't argue that it was a fetal rights issue: they would have to admit they believe that they have the right to punish whomever they identified as wicked. Let's see how well those type of arguments would resonate with the public.

[KillerAim]

Goryani:

Steps to fulfilling this idea require government to codify and/or adjudicate subjects such as "gentlest manner possible." In other words, government will now be passing laws telling us which medical procedures can or can't be performed for which "ailment." Furthermore, government will de facto BAN research into alternative procedures since the alternative procedures will not be shown to be the gentlest manner possible. Libertarianism, this is not.

Nope. Medical groups and/or experts currently determine the risks associated with any type of procedure. They also currently compare and contrast the benefits and risks of possible different procedures with their patients as we speak (write?). Also, the doctor who performs the eviction does not have to use the safest procedure that exists; he just has to use a procedure that has been medically determined to be as safe as or safer than the proposed abortion procedure. There is nothing new here.

How is a prosecutor supposed to determine if a crime occurred in order to file charges? Are abortions going to be so regulated that each and every abortion must first receive approval from the government only after first proving an eviction is impossible? Libertarianism, this is not.

Neither the government nor the woman is involved in determining whether or not the fetus is viable. That is the sole determination of the third party. The government does not have to be involved because this is a private matter. The woman doesn’t have to be involved because her sole concern is to get rid of the fetus as safely as possible. What happens to the fetus after the fact is not her concern.

A crime would be committed if the doctor/hospital performs an abortion without notifying a designated third party group /website/etc. that a fetus is going to be aborted within the designated time period. This is similar to the crime that is committed when a doctor or hospital fails to report a gunshot wound or suspected child abuse in a timely manner.

If the law says abortions are legal before 28 weeks (time period mentioned in Roe v Wade), what happens when a woman says the abortion happened at 27 weeks 6 days? How is this magical conception date determined? Not all fetus' develop at the same rate. Not all predicted conception dates are correct. Not all predicted birth dates are correct.

There would be no time restrictions on the law. The only restrictions are that the alternative eviction procedure is as safe or safer as the abortive procedure and that the procedure is done in a timely matter. Again, whether or not the fetus has a realistic chance to survive outside the womb is not the concern of the law.

Who pays for a law with teeth? Not who pays for the eviction, but who pays for showing that an eviction isn't viable and therefore eligible for abortion? Either you place the burden on the person seeking the procedure, thereby increasing regulation and direct cost, or you place the burden everyone who isn't seeking the procedure though taxes.

You can't show a particular fetus could be viable without trying it's viability. The premise of the definition requires attempting viability for ALL fetus'. Attempting viability for ALL fetus' is tantamount to a law stating that life begins at conception. Libertarianism, this is not.

A non-issue for the reason stated above. The viability of the fetus is not part of the law.

Can citizens fill out forms to inform the government of suspected pregnant individuals so we can make sure they didn't have an illegal abortion? Under what branch of government will the Pregnancy Police be funded? Libertarianism, this is not.

See my comparison to requirements to report gunshot wounds or potential child abuse above.

Anyone who might possibly wish to participate in either an abortion or eviction at some undetermined point in the future must first register with the government. Every single privacy issue raised in Roe v. Wade still exists under the eviction idea. Libertarianism, this is not.

Are you saying that abortions do not currently require documentation? That they are done in secret? Anyways, the privacy of the woman could be maintained. In fact, there are advantages to this requirement as it would also benefit both the fetus and the third party.

The current process of taking over responsibility for a human being (adoption) usually requires YEARS, not days. This idea, without massive regulation, sets up a near endless supply of fresh victims for habitual child abusers. No quippy libertarianism comment here. This is so sick there NEEDS to be regulation to prevent it.

The vetting process would be similar to the vetting of people that want to adopt. In fact I am sure that the current approved people would be the first in line if this became law. I’m surprised that this needed explanation. Also, I find it quite odd that your answer to protect children from potential child abuse is to kill them when they are fetuses.

Who will be eligible to take responsibility for an evicted life? Sorry, trick question. We all know the pro-family groups won't sit idly by and watch the core family come under fire. Who will be allowed to take responsibility for an evicted life? Singes or married only? Homosexual or straight only? Clean criminal record? Pass a drug test? From good, clean stock? Articulate? IQ requirements? Enough money to pay for fees and permits (average adoption cost of newborn is $30,000 out of pocket expenses for adopting parents)?

Again the same qualifications that it would take to currently be vetted as a adopted parent could be used in these cases. Remember also, if there is no potential caretaker that can afford to raise the child on their own or with private support, the fetus can be aborted. No government money should be involved in this process.

It strikes me as odd that pro-lifers don't have to change at all. They can and will continue to subjugate unwed pregnant women and their children to discrimination or worse. They can and will fight to eliminate funding for specific Americans based on gender, race and socio-economic status. Don't get me wrong, there is a certain poetic justice in requiring pro-lifers to engage in behavior similar to stem-cell research (experiments to determine viability of a fetus will inevitably lead to the deaths of many fetus') in order to change the cutoff/distinction between abortion, eviction, and infanticide. But that poetic justice isn't real justice and it's certainly not Libertarianism.

So you’re resorting to a typical liberal rant that has nothing to do with the topic at hand? What a surprise!

Pro-lifers are the ones that have to change the most. They have to accept the fact that a woman has the right to control her own body; which means that she has the right to determine if a fetus, at any stage of development, should stay or leave her womb. If this happens before the fetus is viable or if the eviction would put the woman at a higher health risk then the abortion, then the fetus dies.

Pro-choicers would have to only accept what should be obvious to anyone. They have every right to evict a fetus, but they do not have the right to end its life. They also should realize that this law would put their right to control their body in the primary position. If the fetus dies as the result of the process because it is too immature or for any other reason, then their hands are clean. And if no one steps up to claim the fetus for whatever reason at whatever stage of its development, then they can abort.

[TheNix]

A man will blow FAR more semen into tissues than he ever will into a women. If he doesn't care about them, I don't see he has any reason to care what a woman does with them.

[KillerAim]

Goryani:

Abortion may be less dangerous than eviction. I imagine it will be for a long long long time.

I’ll accept that. And as long as it is less dangerous, than nothing will change and the woman can still have an abortion. In fact, about the only abortions that will immediately be affected by this law would be partial birth abortions.

The point of the law is to give a solid framework based on rights that would evolve with the science involved in the process. The law only comes into play when medical science evolves enough so that the process of eviction is as safe as or safer than the process of abortion. That might take years, decades, or 100’s of years.

People who pay ~$30,000 per adoption are picky. The stats of adoption wait time for certain traits absolutely positively offers proof. Blonds are adopted faster. Girls are adopted faster. Mixed race adoption is roughly proportional to the ratio of racial balance in a state (better racial balance in a state means adoptive parents of the state are more likely to adopt a child of a different race).

So? Then many of these fetuses that could be evicted would not have someone who’s willing to take up the responsibility. In that case, the law says that the fetus can be aborted. So, as I said before, the worst case scenario is the fetuses that would be aborted under the current law would still be aborted on my proposed law. I fail to see your problem with that.

You're missing the real argument. Fervent pro-lifers are about as concerned with saving a fetus from abortion as a rapist is with having sex. If it were about sex, a rapist wouldn't rape. It's about control.

For the fervent pro-lifer, it's about dispensing karmic justice. Being the judge, jury, and executioner for wickedness. The joy of participating in God striking down Sodom and Gomorrah. How is it described? Ah yes, the walk of shame. The desire to punish the mother outweighs the desire to save an unborn, unnamed, unloved, unknown scrape of cells.

Insert liberal rant number 2.

Then why not support this law and see what happens? If you hear a deathly silence from these pro-lifers when a fetus comes up for eviction, you’ve proven your point. The woman isn’t affected because she gets to abort the fetus as originally planned and the pro-lifers are exposed as the control freaks that you think they are.

The converse is equally true. What group is going to argue they should be allowed to control what others do. If they do argue such, then their real reason for eliminating abortion would be revealed. They couldn't argue that it was a fetal rights issue: they would have to admit they believe that they have the right to punish whomever they identified as wicked. Let's see how well those type of arguments would resonate with the public.

I’m seriously beginning to think that you don’t understand the concepts behind this law. The law states that any woman could get rid of her fetus at any time during her pregnancy for any reason. This accepts, without any reservations, the whole concept upon which the pro-choice movement is built: that a woman has the right to control her own body. How in the hell you can describe this as an attempt to control the woman is beyond me.

The only thing that this law limits is the ability of the woman to kill something that she wants to get rid of anyways. And the only limits it puts on this is ability is to say that (1) if the fetus can be removed alive with no increased risk to the woman, provided (2) someone else will take over all responsibility for the fetus after eviction, then the woman cannot kill the fetus.

[BobCox2]

Abortion is less dangerous than birth on your planet, Bob? Do tell...

Birth is 100% fatal anyhow.
Abortion only kills 1 of 2 most times.

Also as it's My life and if you people outlaw or overprice it and contraception, but sponsor a baby selling process and you don't provide support if they don't, well those are putrid value judgements designed to force female people Jmervyn and KA and I can't support that.

Try this instead...
Can I hold this guy down while the taxpayers give him a vasectomy?

Let's give all the male kid's but the ones that can afford it & want to breed a temp clog at puberty and allow abortions?
(and let the girl legislate to make it expensive but include free Viagra as a benefit LOL)

I also support the outlawing or social disapproval of all male and female circumcision before puberty but not after.

Paradoxically enough, and with many parallel arguments to yours

That about covers This Guys views for now KA

You can row that new-tech lifeboat out to sea in your argument a bit farther than in the past but my procedure trumps it and works on way too many people yours does not and are prime offenders.
Guys can and will have more children than girls so if you are concerned about population control.

Lifeboats all only last so long,
and some of us chose not to get in them.
Don't force women and children to get in first if they don't want to all the time.

[Goryani]

I’m seriously beginning to think that you don’t understand the concepts behind this law. The law states that any woman could get rid of her fetus at any time during her pregnancy for any reason. This accepts, without any reservations, the whole concept upon which the pro-choice movement is built: that a woman has the right to control her own body.

Having read the 46 page pdf, I'll start here. No, I did not understand the concepts behind this "law" based on your initial post. I assumed there would be some tangible implementation details. There are not. Additionally, some of the bullet points you phrased differ from ideas in Dr. Block's paper.

No punishment for illegal abortions. "However, if the only way to evict is by killing the fetus, then the woman's right to her property - that is, her womb - must be held above the valuable life of the fetus." (24) There is no discussion of punishment for illegal eviction/abortion. Ever. "Given, then, that abortion is an immoral but not legally punishable offense, what can be done, short of using the majesty of the law,..." (28) There is an implied belief that adherence to the law is 100% voluntary. "That is, the mother could end the pregnancy any time she wished, but once she did so, the determination of life or death for her progeny would be out of her hands." (31) If a fetus dies, it's because anti-abortionists were unable to be Good Samaritans (through lack of technology or through hypocrisy).

No time limits between deciding to abort/evict and abortion/eviction. "Any such requirement would entail slavery of A, for whatever the duration." (25)

No cost for evictions. "This guarantee would have to be financially supported by the pro-life community" (30)

No walk of shame. "Eviction, even though characterized above as constituting "only half a loaf," is all that the pro-life position, properly construed, really requires or is entitled to." (32) "For this movement to spend any effort whatsoever on promoting traditional birth methods implies just that much less can be utilized on their unique mission. Actually, to do so would be a betrayal of that philosophy. Worse, if this is done in the name of pro-life and with financial resources donated to that specific cause, then it amounts to no less than fraud." (32)

How in the hell you can describe this as an attempt to control the woman is beyond me.

You're right. It's not an attempt to control the woman. It's a good idea. It's a GREAT idea. I'm an evictionist and always have been. Dr. Block managed to address every issue I've ever had with anti-abortionist legislation. It's perfect.

Because it's perfect, it will never pass. Dr. Block is telling anti-abortionists to STFU and do something positive. All laws restricting abortion/eviction will be abolished. All laws restricting research with embryos will be abolished in order to establish technology to save embryos....wut? Yeah, someone won't like this idea.

As they say, the devil is in the details. Pro-lifers want the restrictions of post #12. Pro-choicers want the liberty I hope for in this post. Which law gets passed depends on which group is in power at the time of passing. In other words, pretty much exactly like the situation today.

Dr. Block thinks pro-lifers can't win until they give up trying to make things illegal. Bingo. Sex education and contraception are more powerful than jails and walks of shame. I'm glad to hear it said by someone else that isn't immediately accused of being a liberal.

Speaking of liberal...

An undue burden exists and is an invalid law, if its purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion (12)

in order to save the baby's life they have to convince the potentially evil doer monther
128. Who, by analogy now takes on the position of the slave master, not the slave. (15)

What rights and obligations do you have with regard to this violinist? First, let us stipulate that the person in question is a complete innocent. Last night he was in a hospital bed; this morning he woke up in your bed attached to you. He is not a rapist. You were "raped," but this was not done by your bedmate; instead, it was the act of evil doctors who have
since vanished from the scene. What you are confronted with is the result of the rape, namely, this person lying in bed with you attached to your kidneys completely dependent upon you for his life. (19)

The anti-abortionist position, to be logically consistent, would have to hold this action as premeditated, first-degree murder. If the death penalty is justified in any case, it is justified in this one.(24)

From a pragmatic point of view, then, "pro eviction" may well be a better strategy than "pro-life." That is, if maximizing the number of babies saved is the goal. 168
168. Is there any other pro life desiderata worth mentioning in the same breath? Hardly (30)

Had they their 'druthers, [the anti-abortionists] would also insist that the natural mother bring the baby to term after a gestation period of nine months. This, they cannot have, under the terms of the evictionism compromise.(31)

the protesters who hold the vigils are widely seen as"extremists," something that does not bode well for the prospect of saving these helpless young lives.(32)

Eviction, even though characterized above as constituting "only half a loaf," is all that the pro-life position, properly construed, really requires or is entitled to.(32)

Had the pro-lifers seen the difference between these two very different claims say, fifty years ago,
it is just possible that many infants consigned to death today would already be saved.(33)

4. Endangerment
Here is another argument for preventing the pregnant woman from evicting her fetus. This, presumably, would apply under a state of technology that allows for viable evictions or under the lack thereof. The claim is that the pregnant woman is not quite the innocent victim some theories might see her as. On the contrary, she endangered the fetus by giving it life. That is, merely by conceiving of the fetus, she put it in danger.
Ordinarily, for this libertarian view, there are no positive obligations. Good Samaritan laws compelling a person to save someone else's life are illegitimate. (41)

"Hey, you got pregiant with me, you created my life, yau endangered me, you have to save me now."(41)


He's plagiarizing me yet I'm the one being called a liberal.

[Goryani]

Are you saying that abortions do not currently require documentation? That they are done in secret? Anyways, the privacy of the woman could be maintained. In fact, there are advantages to this requirement as it would also benefit both the fetus and the third party.

Privacy of the woman isn't maintained when the government is informed. Detailed medical records obtained by Phil Kline, though means which caused his disbarment (lying to state agencies, falsifying data from said state agencies, and lying/misleading a judge responsible for issuing subpenas) ended up in the hands of Bill O'Reilly. Obviously, only Libertarianism is involved.

The vetting process would be similar to the vetting of people that want to adopt. In fact I am sure that the current approved people would be the first in line if this became law. I’m surprised that this needed explanation. Also, I find it quite odd that your answer to protect children from potential child abuse is to kill them when they are fetuses.

My point was of substantial regulation, not preventing child abuse. The ethos of a pro-lifer is typically synonymous with the ethos of small government and not wanting to spend the money required for these changes to occur. Their modus operandi should be to place the entire cost of evictions on the woman seeking an eviction, which is contrary to the compromise of eviction.

Speaking of cost: time for some napkin math. 1,591,000 abortions annually (pg 16) x ~$10,000 out of pocket , non-insured/cash (skimmed a thread on babycenter.com) cost of a hospital delivery comes out to nearly $16 billion in cost. The cost of a "scrape" varies depending on timing and method, but I think the average was between $300 and $500 per abortion. That's half a billion to a billion off the top. Still, a $15 billion obligation isn't pocket change.

Pro-choicers would have to only accept what should be obvious to anyone. They have every right to evict a fetus, but they do not have the right to end its life. They also should realize that this law would put their right to control their body in the primary position. If the fetus dies as the result of the process because it is too immature or for any other reason, then their hands are clean. And if no one steps up to claim the fetus for whatever reason at whatever stage of its development, then they can abort.

I've never heard of this argument before, so I had no idea it existed. It's obvious to me, but I guess not to everyone. The sole purpose, benefit, right, expectation, responsibility, ..... of any abortion/eviction is to end pregnancy. The one objection (out of 6) Dr. Block addressed which can be attributed to the pro-choice crowd is one I've never seen, never held, and don't support.

I don't understand objection 5 (Plucking) nor have I ever heard anyone, on either side, use those arguments. I'm pretending it doesn't exist here.

[Leopold Stotch]

What If I as a woman just don't want to bear a child did not attempt to become pregnant and don't trust or want adoption under current laws.

Okay, in dire and unfortunate situations like that, she def has the right to choose. If her life is in danger and abortion is the only thing to do, she should be able to decide what to do.