36. “Evictionism is Libertarian; Departurism is Not: Critical Comment on Parr”
Abstract: Evictionist theory allows the mother of an unwanted fetus not to kill it (abortion equals eviction plus killing) but to at any time evict it from her womb, even if it sometimes means the death of the latter. Departurism is incompatible with that philosophy. Parr supports the latter theory. The present paper is devoted to a refutation of that perspective.
![[RSS Feed]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/rss.gif "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Site Feed")
![[iTunes]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/itunes.png "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Podcast with iTunes")
![[CC Attribution 3.0]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/80x15.png)
Seems to me that both parties are trying to fit a fetus into a framework of theory which recognises only adults and objects.
Both gentlemen make it clear that they are fully aware that a fetus is in significant ways not an adult – e.g. it cannot consent or intend and thus not enter into any form of contract. But they cannot resist the game of trying to make it fit somehow, such as by drawing analogy with a co-operative trespasser departing as fast as they reasonably can, (or conversely an obstinate trespasser declining to leave within a reasonable time).
Perhaps the way ahead is to recognise that young humans – whether at the stage of fetus, baby, toddler, or child below the age of reason – belong in a different category, neither adult nor thing (that can be possessed by an adult). The challenge for libertarian thought is to become 3-dimensional enough to encompass such a category; to add an axiom that fits alongside its existing axioms.
Life begins at conception. That’s the premise accepted here. Well where do rights stem from then? The a priori of argumentation ala Hoppe (http://conza.tumblr.com/tagged/argumentation%20ethics). So regarding the ability to engage in argumentation:
[1] “none” (dead, inanimate object)
[2] “potential” (babies; part of their nature), (coma patient, knocked unconscious, mentally handicapped – those that have shown to be able to engage in argumentation, at least once, and may be able to do so once again)
[3] “always” (children, adults etc.)
So therefore; [1] No Rights, [2] “Guardianship” or “Trustee” Rights, [3] Full self-ownership.
This is thus both logically rigorous and accurate.
But what about people who haven’t ever shown the ability to engage in argumentation, and will never be able to do so? Like a child born with Rett-Syndrome, which essentially reduces the child to a non-rational creature forever. They only seem to fit in the ‘No Rights’ category.