| This article is part of a series on |
| Libertarianism in the United States |
|---|
 |
Departurism [1] [2] [3] is an anti-abortion libertarian approach to the reproductive rights controversy developed by American philosopher Sean Parr which argues, contrary to evictionism, [4] that the lethal removal of an unwanted fetus ought to be legally impermissible (except in cases where the pregnancy jeopardizes the life of the mother). [5]
Both departurism and evictionism acknowledge that a fetus is a distinct, living human being and, further, admit their personhood. [6]
There are two aspects of these theories that make them uniquely libertarian:
Moreover, both theories argue that the fetus lacks mens rea in his occupation of the mother's womb, so the mother's treatment of the fetus must follow the principle of gentleness. [10] [11]
Gentleness is an ex ante element of law—similar to the ex post element, proportionality—which states that if the victim of an invasion intends to halt it while it is occurring, they must only use the least severe measures necessary to do so. Failing to use the gentlest means possible to end non-criminal aggression, places the victim "at risk of falling on the wrong side of the non-aggression principle," [12] violating it "to a far greater extent than is the trespasser." [13] Because all fetuses "are equally innocent," [14] this attempt to curtail property owners from dealing with such trespassers "more severely than libertarian punishment theory allows" [15] is applicable to unwanted fetuses who are the result of rape no less than those whom are consensually conceived. [16]
Where departurism and evictionism differ is in their understanding of what gentleness ought to look like when it is properly applied to situations of trespass within the womb.
The evictionist view is that the mother may not directly kill the unwanted child (e.g., initiate a medical abortion, [17] non-lethally evict the child and then kill him, [18] etc.), but she may indirectly do so by evicting him from her premises during a time in which he is non-viable outside the womb. This lethal eviction however, if it's to be in accord with gentleness, must proceed only after the relevant authorities [19] have been notified to see if they are able and willing to prevent this removal from becoming fatal. [20]
Departurism, likewise, holds that the mother may evict [21] but not directly kill the trespassing fetus, but, contrary to evictionism, neither may she kill him by eviction. The mother, if her actions are to conform to gentleness, must allow for the continued departure of the trespasser until such time that eviction no longer entails his death. That is, "it is only the lethal (or otherwise debilitating) eviction of a fetus during a normal pregnancy that departurism views as discordant with gentleness and, thus, a violation of the NAP." [22]
Because the requirements of both views (evictionism's notification and departurism's continued departure) are said to find their justification in gentleness, it is the view whose requirement best conforms to this principle that should be preferable on libertarian grounds.
The departurist argument is an attempt to
First, the departurist argument compares two situations, S1 and S2.
S1 represents the situation of a trespasser who is (a) unable to engage in human action and (b) leaving the premises of the property owner, while (c) not endangering the life of the same, and where (d) the eviction of this trespasser will result in his death. S2 represents the situation of an unwanted fetus in the uterus of his mother.
Departurism claims that these situations are relevantly similar to each other and therefore cannot be treated differently. That is, the requirement of practical consistency dictates that the same course of action is appropriate in both situations. [24]
Second, the departurist argument describes a course of action, A.
A represents the course of action in which the property owner allows for the trespasser to continue his departure until such time that eviction will not necessitate his death.
Departurism claims that this course of action stops the trespass in a comparatively less harmful manner than does the course of action advanced by evictionism (e.g., it doesn't entail that the inadvertent aggressor be subjected to unjustifiable life-taking or NAP-violating violence). [25] That is, the principle of gentleness dictates that this course of action is the correct, libertarian one in either case.
Departurism illustrates a potential expression of S1 which includes all of its relevant conditions (a-d). This illustration posits a property, owned by M and on which F is trespassing, which abuts a cliff on its southern border. F, whose mental state or capacity is such that he is incapable of knowing that he is trespassing, [27] is travelling along this cliffside from west to east and off of M's property (that is, unwitting F happens to be vacating the premises). Importantly, there is nothing about F's trespass which is seriously endangering M's life. [28] M knows that should F be pushed off the cliff while on the western end of the premises (the black area), F will certainly die due to the severe height of the fall. Further, M is aware that a fall from the eastern end of the premises (the white area) will not prove fatal for F due to the negligible distance from the cliffside to ground below. A fall from in between these ends (the gray area) may or may not be deadly. According to departurism,
whether or not a fall from the gray area is fatal depends on the technology available at the time to prevent it from becoming so. To wit, 1000 years ago the gray area would have been all black; 1000 years from now, with technological advances, the gray area will be all white. Currently, falls from the gray area are more likely to result in death and serious injury the closer they are to the black area, and less likely to result in the same the closer they are to the white area. [29]
Departurism makes the case that the evictionist-proposed course of action (that M may legally shove F headlong off the cliff and unto the black or western gray areas) is not transformed into a less harsh means of ending the trespass simply because the evictionist notification requirement has first been satisfied (e.g., someone was told about this fatal cliff-tossing beforehand). The departurist indictment goes on to state that this evictionist position represents "nothing if not a textbook example of the very response on the part of the victim that gentleness was placed into libertarian law so as to preclude." [30] Moreover, the supposed gentleness of evictionism falls short when compared to the departurist-proposed course of action (that M be prohibited from evicting F unto the black or western gray areas when so doing constitutes a degree of severity inappropriate for bringing an end to this particular trespass).
Evictionism concedes that the following conditions of S1 are present in S2:
(a) The trespasser is incapable of purposeful behavior. [31]
(b) The trespasser is in the process of departing the property owner's premises. [32]
Although the evictionist has made no quarrel with either of these points, departurism has elucidated how the latter condition relates to S2 in the following way:
It can be assumed that every pregnancy begins at the western end of M's premises. From fertilization to parturition, the process of gestation takes the fetus from the western to the eastern end (and off) of M's premises. The fetus, as a matter of fact, is departing the premises of the property owner and he is so doing from the moment that he first arrives there—regardless of the point at which he is deemed a trespasser. [33]
Furthermore, evictionism does not dispute the presence in S2 of the remaining conditions of S1—as these conditions represent, respectively, the most prevalent and the most relevant instances of uterine trespass:
(c) The trespasser is not jeopardizing the proprietor's life via aggression against property rights in the person.
(d) The trespasser's eviction from said premises would necessitate his death.
Practical consistency prohibits the trespasser in S2 from being treated differently from the trespasser in S1 because all of the relevant conditions of the latter situation are found also in the former. It is for this reason that departurism holds that
just as it ought to be illicit for M to send F fatally off into the wild blue yonder, it ought also to be illicit for a mother to kill, or otherwise unjustifiably maim, the unwanted fetus in her womb by eviction. [34]
Departurism charges evictionism with radically conceiving of the gentleness principle not as the least harmful manner possible consistent with stopping the aggression, but as the most expedient manner possible consistent with stopping the aggressor. The departurist claim is that this comprehension destroys the spirit or intended purpose of the gentleness principle by twisting it in order to permit victims of non-criminal aggression to engage in severe reactions and over-responses—the very things which are the principle's purpose to prohibit. [35]
Both evictionism and departurism contain requirements that the mother withhold the eviction of the unwanted child for some amount of time. For the former, that amount of time is the duration required for the mother's notification of the authorities; for the latter, it is the duration required for the child's continued departure to reach the point at which his eviction no longer necessitates a NAP-violation. The departurist claim is that the evictionist notification requirement constitutes a positive obligation, and so is anathema to libertarianism. Evictionism's requirement, unlike departurism's, is a positive one because it neither derives from nor constitutes the gentlest manner possible of bringing the fetal trespass to an end. [36]
It is the departurist view that evictionism transforms libertarianism into an ideology of squatters by means of its positive obligation that the mother notify the authorities prior to her lethal eviction of the fetus. The departurist claim is that this permits the fetus to occupy the mother's premises, without her permission, for the duration of that notification.
Departurism further holds that evictionism transforms libertarianism into an ideology of corpses. The evictionist view is that because the trespasser in this case cannot engage in purposeful behavior, the phenomenon of implicit contracts is impotent to prevent his lethal eviction from the mother's uterus (even if the duration of his trespass is not onerous). But womb-aged children are not the only category of persons to whom it can be argued that implicit contracts are not applicable. The departurist claim is that, under evictionism, any guest who is mentally or developmentally incapable of entering into a contract may have his invitation rescinded by his host at any time, and this newly-designated "trespasser" can then be lethally and lawfully removed from the premises. [37] The evictionist has not balked at this characterization of his view, stating that the departurist makes a "not totally unreasonable point." [38] The evictionist has even gone on to concede that this "of course sounds horrible," [39] before attempting to justify it on consequentialist grounds.
Walter Block has made counter-arguments to departurism. [40] [41]
In traditional logic, a contradiction occurs when a proposition conflicts either with itself or established fact. It is often used as a tool to detect disingenuous beliefs and bias. Illustrating a general tendency in applied logic, Aristotle's law of noncontradiction states that "It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect."
Libertarians promote individual liberty and seek to minimize the role of the state. The abortion debate is mainly within right-libertarianism between cultural liberals and social conservatives as left-libertarians generally see it as a settled issue regarding individual rights, as they support legal access to abortion as part of what they consider to be a woman's right to control her body and its functions. Religious right and intellectual conservatives have attacked such libertarians for supporting abortion rights, especially after the demise of the Soviet Union led to a greater divide in the conservative movement between libertarians and social conservatives. Libertarian conservatives claim libertarian principles such as the non-aggression principle (NAP) apply to human beings from conception and that the universal right to life applies to fetuses in the womb. Thus, some of those individuals express opposition to legal abortion. According to a 2013 survey, 5.7/10 of American Libertarians oppose making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion.
The abortion debate is a longstanding, ongoing controversy that touches on the moral, legal, medical, and religious aspects of induced abortion. In English-speaking countries, the debate most visibly polarizes around adherents of the self-described "pro-choice" and "pro-life" movements. Pro-choice supporters uphold that individuals have the right to make their own decisions about their reproductive health, and that they should have the option to end a pregnancy if they choose to do so, taking into account various factors such as the stage of fetal development, the health of the woman, and the circumstances of the conception. Pro-life advocates, on the other hand, maintain that a fetus is a human being with inherent rights that cannot be overridden by the woman's choice or circumstances, and that abortion is morally wrong in most or all cases. Both terms are considered loaded words in mainstream media, where terms such as "abortion rights" or "anti-abortion" are generally preferred.
Self-ownership is the concept of property in one's own body, often expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity meaning the exclusive right to control one's own body including one's life, where 'control' means exerting any physical interference and 'exclusive' means having the right to install and enforce a ban on other people doing this. Since the legal norm of property title claim incapacitates other people from claiming property title over the same resource at the same time, the right to control or interfere with one's own body in any arbitrary way is secured. Anarcho-capitalism defines self-ownership as the exclusive right to control one's body as long as the owner does not aggress upon others, leading to the concept of the sovereign individual. In Minarchism the 'exclusive right' is understood by separating the 'liberty-to' from the 'liberty-from' where for each person the 'liberty-to' is restricted by all the 'liberty's-from' of others, effectively subjecting the 'liberty-to' to the ban on the usage of force. Thereafter self-ownership means the exclusive right to control one's body insofar considering action between inhabitants and not involving the state, making it roughly a pacifist morality only among inhabitants. Self-ownership is a central idea in several political philosophies that emphasize individualism, such as libertarianism and liberalism.
Fetal viability is the ability of a human fetus to survive outside the uterus. Viability depends upon factors such as birth weight, gestational age, and the availability of advanced medical care. In low-income countries, more than 90% of extremely preterm newborns die due to a lack of said medical care; in high-income countries, the vast majority of these newborns survive.
The non-aggression principle (NAP), also called the non-aggression axiom, is the legal or moral rule that states that for every person, all ways of action with their property except aggression are permitted, where aggression is defined as the initiation of forceful action, and where forceful action is defined as 'the application or threat of' 'physical interference or fraud ', any of which without consent. The principle is also called the non-initiation of force. The principle incorporates universal enforceability. In other words the principle represents the substantive law and also incorporates both the procedural law and the sanction law, and can as such be considered anarchic.
Prenatal perception is the study of the extent of somatosensory and other types of perception during pregnancy. In practical terms, this means the study of fetuses; none of the accepted indicators of perception are present in embryos. Studies in the field inform the abortion debate, along with certain related pieces of legislation in countries affected by that debate. As of 2022, there is no scientific consensus on whether a fetus can feel pain.
A Defense of Abortion is a moral philosophy essay by Judith Jarvis Thomson first published in Philosophy & Public Affairs in 1971. Granting for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, Thomson uses thought experiments to argue that the right to life does not include, entail, or imply the right to use someone else's body to survive and that induced abortion is therefore morally permissible. Thomson's argument has critics on both sides of the abortion debate, but it continues to receive defense. Despite criticism, "A Defense of Abortion" remains highly influential.
Right-libertarianism, also known as libertarian capitalism, or right-wing libertarianism, is a libertarian political philosophy that supports capitalist property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property. The term right-libertarianism is used to distinguish this class of views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism, a type of libertarianism that combines self-ownership with an anti-authoritarian approach to property and income. In contrast to socialist libertarianism, right-libertarianism supports free-market capitalism. Like most forms of libertarianism, it supports civil liberties, especially natural law, negative rights, the non-aggression principle, and a major reversal of the modern welfare state. Practitioners of Right-libertarianism usually do not self-describe by that term and often object to it.
Fetal rights are the moral rights or legal rights of the human fetus under natural and civil law. The term fetal rights came into wide usage after Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark case that legalized abortion in the United States. The concept of fetal rights has evolved to include the issues of maternal substance use disorders, including alcohol use disorder and opioid use disorder. Most international human rights charters "clearly reject claims that human rights should attach from conception or any time before birth." While most international human rights instruments lack a universal inclusion of the fetus as a person for the purposes of human rights, the fetus is granted various rights in the constitutions and civil codes of several countries.
The law of equal liberty is the fundamental precept of liberalism and socialism. Stated in various ways by many thinkers, it can be summarized as the view that all individuals must be granted the maximum possible freedom as long as that freedom does not interfere with the freedom of anyone else. While socialists have been hostile to liberalism, which is accused of "providing an ideological cover for the depredation of capitalism", scholars have stated that "the goals of liberalism are not so different from those of the socialists", although this similarity in goals has been described as being deceptive due to the different meanings liberalism and socialism give to liberty, equality and solidarity, including the meaning, implications and norms of equal liberty derived from it.
Libertarianism is variously defined by sources as there is no general consensus among scholars on the definition nor on how one should use the term as a historical category. Scholars generally agree that libertarianism refers to the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with little or no government power.
The philosophical aspects of the abortion debate are logical arguments that can be made either in support of or in opposition to abortion. The philosophical arguments in the abortion debate are deontological or rights-based. The view that all or almost all abortion should be illegal generally rests on the claims that (1) the existence and moral right to life of human beings begins at or near conception-fertilization; that (2) induced abortion is the deliberate and unjust killing of the embryo in violation of its right to life; and that (3) the law should prohibit unjust violations of the right to life. The view that abortion should in most or all circumstances be legal generally rests on the claims that (1) women have a right to control what happens in and to their own bodies; that (2) abortion is a just exercise of this right; and that (3) the law should not criminalize just exercises of the right to control one's own body and its life-support functions.
Walter Edward Block is an American Austrian School economist and anarcho-capitalist theorist. He was the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair in Economics at the School of Business at Loyola University New Orleans and a former senior fellow of the non-profit think-tank Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama.
In Judaism, views on abortion draw primarily upon the legal and ethical teachings of the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud, the case-by-case decisions of responsa, and other rabbinic literature. While all major Jewish religious movements allow or encourage abortion in order to save the life of a pregnant woman, authorities differ on when and whether it is permitted in other cases.
The beginning of human personhood is the moment when a human is first recognized as a person. There are differences of opinion as to the precise time when human personhood begins and the nature of that status. The issue arises in a number of fields including science, religion, philosophy, and law, and is most acute in debates relating to abortion, stem cell research, reproductive rights, and fetal rights.
Muslim views on abortion are shaped by Hadith, as well as by the opinions of legal and religious scholars and commentators. The Quran does not directly address intentional abortion, leaving greater discretion to the laws of individual countries. Although opinions among Islamic scholars differ over when a pregnancy can be terminated, there are no explicit prohibitions on a woman's ability to abort under Islamic law.
Abortion inHinduism, while generally considered reprehensible by traditional Hindu scriptures and the guiding precept of non-injury, can be interpreted equivocally within the vast spectrum of Hindu beliefs and texts and ultimately depends on individual context. The Mahanarayana Upanishad lists abortion with actions such as breaking one's vow of chastity. Some Hindu scriptures assert that "abortion is a worse sin than killing one's parents" and another text says that "a woman who aborts her child will lose her status". In general, Hinduism teaches the guiding principle of Ahimsa, abstention from causing harm or injury to all living beings, which serves as the root of the ethic of non-violence.
Foeticide, or feticide, is the act of killing a fetus, or causing a miscarriage. Definitions differ between legal and medical applications, whereas in law, feticide frequently refers to a criminal offense, in medicine the term generally refers to a part of an abortion procedure in which a provider intentionally induces fetal demise to avoid the chance of an unintended live birth, or as a standalone procedure in the case of selective reduction.
Evictionism is a moral theory advanced by Walter Block and Roy Whitehead on a proposed libertarian view of abortion based on property rights. This theory is built upon the earlier work of philosopher Murray Rothbard who wrote that "no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body" and that therefore the woman is entitled to eject the baby from her body at any time. Evictionists view a woman's womb as her property and an unwanted fetus as a "trespasser or parasite", even while lacking the will to act. They argue that a pregnant woman has the right to evict a fetus from her body since she has no obligation to care for a trespasser. The authors' hope is that bystanders will "homestead" the right to care for evicted babies and reduce the number of human deaths. They argue that life begins at conception and state that the act of abortion must be conceptually separated into the acts of:
