Legal Principle

• A woman’s right to choose what is in her body is simple when applied to prostitution, drug use, euthanasia and vaccines, but when the object in the body is an unborn human being, a conflict arrises; property rights has to be considered for both.
• Reasonable people, equally and honestly committed to upholding the Legal Principle, disagree about whether the rights of the unborn begin at conception, or closer to the point of birth.
• Like many complex and divisive issues, recognising that there is no objectively correct answer is key to peaceful coexistence. None of us are entitled to have our favored interpretations of how the Legal Principles applies to complex issues imported into the law and applied to everyone. Rather than endlessly fighting about the issue and seeking a one-size-fits-all solution, we must resolve it by letting local communities decide which reasonable interpretation to adopt, to achieve freedom and peace.
• If a community reasonably believes rights begin at conception, that’s compatible with the Legal Principle, but other communities might draw the line later by also defending the property rights of the mother to determine what is in her body.

Important variables

• Heath of the pregnant woman
  • Where one person presents a substantial threat of physical harm to another, if the threat is imminent, the threatened person is always legally entitled to utilize the least amount of force necessary to terminate that threat.
  • If terminating the life of the unborn baby is the least amount of force needed to prevent a substantial injury or death to the pregnant woman, then the pregnant woman, like any other person in such a situation, is entitled to take the life of the other person to defend herself.
  • Therefore, legally disallowing abortion in a case where the unborn baby threatens a substantial injury or death to the pregnant woman should always be considered an unreasonable interpretation of the LP as it would negate the fundamental right of self-defense. That said, exactly what factual circumstances satisfy these criteria is an area where reasonable minds differ. Indeed, this is always the case in any self-defense matter.
• Rape
  • In the case of rape, even if we consider the unborn baby a self-owning human baby fully protected by the Legal Principle, legally prohibiting the pregnant woman from terminating the pregnancy should always be regarded as an unreasonable interpretation of the Legal Principle. The reason for this conclusion is that even if the unborn baby is fully protected by the Legal Principle, the involuntarily pregnant woman has done nothing to incur a legal duty to help or assist the unborn baby survive. While people have moral duties to assist others in need of help, legal duties to assist others, even to survive, do not arise unless a person takes some action to put another person in a desperate situation.
  • As an example, no person has a legal duty to rescue a stranger at risk of drowning. However, if that same person did something to put the stranger at risk of drowning, such as pushing the stranger into the water, then the person accrues a legal duty to take action to rescue the stranger.
  • Precisely what other circumstances may amount to an involuntary pregnancy may be an area where reasonable minds can disagree.
• Unborn baby’s health and expected quality of life
  • We can resolve the specific issue of the unborn baby's health and expected quality of life in the same way we analyze the euthanasia issue. It is important to note that this analysis requires the pregnant mother to exercise her judgment in good faith in the capacity of a fiduciary or guardian of the unborn baby and not for her self-interested benefit.
  • Even if we consider the unborn baby a self-owning human baby fully protected by the Legal Principle, the baby does not possess the capacity to exercise its judgment. For the same reason a competent adult, as the owner of their own body, has a right to terminate their life, the pregnant mother, as the fiduciary or guardian of the unborn baby, has the right to exercise discretion to determine the baby's life is not worth living. The same analysis would also apply to the discretion of parents acting in the best interests of a young child who is facing a painful and terminal illness.
  • As with the other issues described above, reasonable minds can disagree upon how to determine whether the pregnant woman is acting in the capacity of a proper fiduciary or guardian for the unborn baby's best interests.

Evictionism

• Evictionism is an idea proposed by Professor Walter Block as a solution for post-viability that many can agree on.
• Suppose current medical technology exists and is employed to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy while simultaneously sustaining the life of the unborn baby. We could more accurately refer to this procedure as an “eviction” rather than an “abortion.” After such an eviction, the formerly pregnant woman, who would presumably have no further interest in the baby, certainly has no valid basis for insisting upon terminating the baby's life.
• Because the LP certainly applies to babies after birth, intentionally terminating the evicted baby's life would violate the LP. However, allowing a pregnant woman to terminate the pregnancy of a viable unborn baby under conditions where medical technology is employed to sustain the baby's life should pose no legal issue because there is no violation of the LP
• Employing the “eviction analysis” for post-viable unborn babies results in a win for the woman who no longer desires to be pregnant or to be a mother, a win for the unborn baby who is allowed to live life, and a win for any adoptive parents who desire a baby to raise as their own. It would be hard to conclude such a process is unethical or violates any aspect of the MP. Other complicating issues remain, such as the biological father's rights and sufficient funding to sustain the baby's life if there are no willing adoptive parents or other people to pay for the necessary sustaining medical care voluntarily.

Often made contentious arguments

• Some argue that the Legal Principle applies to the fertilised egg, which has unique DNA. But dead skin and cut hair also has unique DNA and we do not afford ‘personhood’ to these human cells.
• The same people that make the ‘sanctity of life’ argument to a two-celled zygote often have no legal or moral objection to the killing of biologically complex, sentient, pain-feeling, non-human animals.
• Some argue that ‘viability outside the womb’ is the point at which protection of the Legal Principle should be applied, but it is unclear why this moving target, entirely subject to technological advancements, should be the correct point.