Evictionism is the compromise position between the two extreme and contending viewpoints on the abortion issue — pro-life and pro-choice.
For pro-lifers, a pregnant woman can never evict or remove the fetus from her body, even in the third trimester, when he would be viable outside of her body. She may never kill him; that would be murder.
For pro-choicers, a pregnant woman may evict, remove, eject, expel the fetus at any time of her choosing during the nine month gestation period. She may also end his life, since he is not yet a human being.
In sharp contrast, the evictionist philosophy cuts this baby in half, giving each side on this debate only a part of what it wants.
For evictionists, a woman may evict, emit, oust the fetus at any time during her pregnancy. Given medical technology, he will die if removed during the first two trimesters, but not during the third. Up to this point, evictionism and pro-choice overlap. But for evictionists, a woman may never kill her baby in the third trimester, since that would be murder, in that the fetus is a very young human being (he is a “he” not an “it”). At this point, evictionism and pro-life overlap.
How can this compromise position of evictionism be defended? It is predicated upon two principles.
First, human life begins with the fertilized egg. Neither the sperm, nor the egg, alone, will mature into an adult; but the fertilized egg will do exactly that. Here, we side with the pro-lifers.
There are only two other options that fall under pro-choice. One is that human life begins at birth. But the nine month old fetus, 5 minutes away from being born, is indistinguishable from the baby 5 minutes after leaving the womb. They are as alike as are you and I, gentle reader, separated by those 10 minutes. The other is that life begins when the heart starts beating. But a man undergoing a heart transplant for a few minutes before the new one is inserted into his body has no heart at all, let alone one that is beating. He is still an alive human being. If someone comes to the hospital and shoots this patient in the head, the shooter is a murderer, not merely guilty of pumping bullets into a dead body. An exception exists in the Jewish tradition, where the fetus only becomes a human being when he graduates from medical school.
The second principle of evictionism is private property rights. Who owns the body of a pregnant woman? Why, she does, of course. It is as if her person is akin to a “house,” and she is the owner of this “edifice.” As such, she has the right to evict all trespassers.
Consider the case of rape. There is now a very small person growing inside of her “building.” Given that he is there without permission and is unwanted, he is a trespasser. He is an innocent one, to be sure. Only his rapist father is a criminal. Suppose you came home one day and found a strange baby in your house. Would you be obligated to feed and care for him for nine months? Of course not. You would call a hospital, or a police station, or an orphanage, and hand the infant over to their care. Suppose that if you did so, the newborn would die. Would you then be obligated to be his guardian for nine months? Still, no. There are no such positive legal obligations in any civilized society. Up to this point, evictionism overlaps with the pro-choice position. Could you legally kill that baby, on the ground that you do not want that rapist’s progeny to survive? No, the father is a criminal, but not the baby. Here, evictionism and the pro-life philosophies reach the same conclusion.
What of the case of voluntary sexual intercourse, which eventuates in the creation of an unwanted baby? Wasn’t there in effect an invitation offered to the fetus? Does not the woman thus have an obligation to bring the fetus to term? This is the pro-life position, but it is erroneous. If Jones invites Smith to dinner, he is not obligated to serve him for nine months; he may ask him to leave at will. More problematically, there was no “invitation” in this case. In order for an invitation to be issued, there must necessarily be both an inviter and an invitee. At the time of intercourse, there was no invitee. That is because it takes a while for the sperm to reach the egg and until it does, there can be no such person to be invited into the womb. Sexual intercourse occurs before there is an invitee in existence.
There is only one exception to the general evictionist rule that banishing the fetus, but not killing him, is lawful: the surrogate mother. She is contractually obligated to bring the baby to term, since she was paid to do so and agreed to do so.
If there is ever a civil war in God forbid, Canada, the most likely source of it will be a fight over abortion. It thus behooves all men of good will to seriously consider any and all principled compromise positions such as this one.
Walter E. Block is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics at Loyola University in New Orleans, and the author of Evictionism: The compromise solution to the pro-life pro-choice debate controversy.
National Post