#evictionism

Suppose one day you wake up to find yourself attached to another person, e.g., Thompson's by now famous violinist, through your kidneys. You have two healthy organs, and the other person has none that are functioning. During the night, while you slept, doctors performed an operation connecting that person to your kidneys through a sort of umbilical chord, and there you lie. This operation was conducted without the permission or even knowledge of either "patient."

What rights and obligations do you have with regard to this violinist? First, let us stipulate that the person in question is a complete innocent. Last night he was in a hospital bed; this morning he woke up in your bed attached to you. He is not a rapist. You were "raped," but this was not done by your bed-mate; instead, it was the act of evil doctors who have since vanished from the scene. What you are confronted with is the result of the rape, namely, this person lying in bed with you attached to your kidneys completely dependent upon you for his life.

What can you do with this person? Suppose he goes back to sleep and is thus totally helpless. Can you just slit his throat? That would be murder and must therefore be opposed. Killing him is aggressive; it constitutes initiatory violence. Even if you can get away with it on practical grounds, it should certainly not be allowed on the basis of legal principles.

What can you do? Do you have to let him stay attached for nine months or for any particular length of time? Instead of slitting his throat, can you sever the connection between the two of you - which would also cause his death? If you did that, you would still be guilty of the initiation of coercion, surely a crime, specifically, murder. What you must do is notify somebody - the association "Friends of Kidney Victims" or a hospital or the Salvation Army or the Church and have them sever the connection between you two, without thereby killing this dependent.

“…Abortion is really a complex word. It’s eviction plus killing. We have to separate those two. The libertarian compromise, as I see it, is, you have a right to evict but not to kill…” — Dr. Walter Block

For those who couldn’t be bothered watching the short video or reading the journal article [1],[2] (where all the inevitable objections are addressed) here’s a quick summary:

   A. Pro-abortion (pro-choice)    B. Eviction (pro property rights)    C. Anti-abortion (pro-life)

   1. Is the mother compelled to bring the fetus to term; that is, to carry it for nine months?    A. no    B. no    C. yes

   2. Can the mother evict the fetus from her womb?    A. yes    B. yes    C. no

https://mereliberty.com/lci/evictionism-walter-block-abortion/

“Evictionism is Libertarian; Departurism is Not: Critical Comment on Parr”

http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-36.pdf

Picture a cruise liner or your home—when an invited guest, for whatever reason, becomes uninvited and asked to leave, if they refuse - they then become a trespasser. Removing them in the gentlest manner possible is the evictionist position. 

On a boat, be it stowaway, or uninvited guest, that means waiting to the next port. Throwing them overboard right then and there would be the Pro-Choice position. Forcing the property owner to take the stowaway the entire trip (9 months), is the Pro-Life position. The eminently reasonable and common sense position is to remove them at the next port of call.

Clarifying even further.. a cruise liner is on the trip for 9 months before it comes to a berth (pun intended). "Ports of call" are short stops on the way. Stowaway, invited guest now uninvited, whatever.. gentlest means possible.

The Tender ("In some ports the ship has to drop anchor some distance from shore. Tenders are covered boats that carry passengers to shore") is the medical/technological aspect. They are involved in ferrying the person(/fetus) to safety. The risk involved in whether they make it or not (viable) depends on the technology etc. and obviously thus time.

https://youtu.be/D06j3awJnik