You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

saturnhs comments on Blues, Greens and abortion - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Snowyowl 05 March 2011 07:15PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (150)
Tags: blue abortion green politics

Comments (150)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: saturnhs 17 November 2015 08:28:57PM *  -1 points [-]

For those of us with a libertarian bent (or an interest in libertarian views), I recently encountered a compelling argument based on the non-aggression principle which both (1) presumes that abortion is categorically the killing of a human being, and (2) endorses a pro-choice position. Block and Whitehead, "Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy" (PDF).

Essentially, the argument goes:

  • A woman's womb is her property
  • An unwanted fetus is therefore a trespasser on her property (even if an unwilling one)
  • Therefore, the woman is justified in killing the fetus if that is the only viable way to remove it from her property, just as a landowner would be justified in using violent force to remove a trespasser if and only if all nonviolent attempts had failed.
Comment author: Lumifer 17 November 2015 08:56:25PM 4 points [-]

That's a pretty bad argument.

Comment author: gjm 18 November 2015 12:36:08PM *  0 points [-]

This is obviously some strange use of the term "non-aggression" that I wasn't previously aware of.

So suppose someone is badly injured and dumped in your garden, and you have no way to get them off your property without killing them (because of their injuries), do you seriously find killing them an acceptable course of action?

I am pro-choice myself, but if I considered abortion "categorically the killing of a human being" and saw no better argument for permitting it than an analogy with non-deliberate tresspass then I would switch sides in a foetal heartbeat.

(If you want an argument along roughly these lines, may I commend to you Judith Jarvis Thomson's "violinist" thought experiment? It seems to me strictly better than this, for anyone who doesn't think property rights are the only thing that matters.)

[EDITED to fix the spelling of Thomson's surname.]

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit