Libertarians have two major schools of thought when it comes to the question of abortion, both of which are disgusting and wrong on a fundamental level. Those groups are the departurists and the evictionists.

Evictionists are the worst of the worst for several reasons, but to explain that I first need to explain what their view is. Both departurists and evictionists recognize the fetus as an unborn child with its own individual rights, but evictionists believe something much more sinister on top of that. Evictionists believe that a woman’s body is her own property, and because of this, a mother may determine at will that her fetus is a parasite that is infringing upon her property rights.

While a departurist (still believing that a woman’s body is her own property) would believe that it is only justifiable to remove the fetus in the rare case that the woman was raped or the fetus was threatening the life of the mother, an evictionist believes that women have the right to “evict” the fetus from “her premises” as she sees fit, as a fetus being in her “private property” against her consent (which can be withdrawn at any time) is seen as a violation of the non-aggression principle, regardless of whether or not the fetus is threatening her life, or if it became a resident of her “private property” by her invitation when she engaged in unprotected sex.

The eviction analogy allows the libertarian to compare the rights of the pregnant woman with the rights of the landlord, who reserves the right to evict any tenant from his private property for any reason. The issue here is simple; evicting a tenant from a piece of real estate isn’t the direct murder of a tenant, while the removal of a developing fetus is. Both camps hold that the fetus must be removed from the mother unharmed and in-tact, leaving it to die of natural causes, but that also implies that they reserve the right to evict a tenant they know perfectly well would die instantly upon being removed from their property.

Morality is not subjective, it is objective, and directly and intentionally causing the death of another person is objectively morally wrong in any case unless they directly threaten your physical safety. On top of that, the age of the victim has to be taken into account. An adult tenant is fully capable of rational thought and is responsible for his own expenses. A fetus is an underdeveloped child whose responsibilities lie with his parents.

It is inexcusable to use ideology to rationalize and over-nuance a simple moral question. If you believe that a fetus is a human being and that killing human beings is wrong, you must be pro-life, without exception. At least with the pro-choice argument, they reject the idea that a fetus is a human, and although that is wrong, it is not contradictory with their conclusion that abortion is acceptable for any reason. The evictionist argument simply makes no sense.

By: Bloo