WALTER BLOCK vs JAKUB BOZYDAR WISNIEWSKI DEBATING ABORTION: A SUMMARY

Without a doubt, one of the most controversial issues currently being debated is abortion. Several decades ago, philosopher and economist Walter Block offered a compromise of the seemingly uncompromisable problem based on libertarian principles, which he called evictionism. Evictionism is based on the theory of self-ownership and the implications that follow, which are the non-aggression principle and private property rights. It is a principled compromise between the traditional pro-life and pro-choice positions. According to evictionism, it would not be illegal for a pregnant woman to evict a fetus at any time for any reason because she is the one who owns her womb, but it would be illegal for her to kill the fetus unnecessarily once it’s viable. This means that before viability, an eviction that necessarily results in the death of the fetus would be legal. After viability, however, an eviction that unnecessarily results in the death of a fetus would be considered murder and consequently illegal. Unfortunately, though, very few people have heard of this compromise. What’s worse of those who have heard of it, even fewer have been convinced by it. Consequently, there have been several written debates between Block and his critics about their perceived problems with his proposed compromise. The purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed summary of one of the first main debates that Block has had on the topic.

Why bother the public? A critique of Leslie Cannold’s empirical research on ectogenesis

Can discussion with members of the public show philosophers where they have gone wrong? Leslie Cannold argues that it can in her 1995 paper ‘Women, Ectogenesis and Ethical Theory’, which investigates the ways in which women reason about abortion and ectogenesis (the gestation of foetuses in artificial wombs). In her study, Cannold interviewed female non-philosophers. She divided her participants into separate ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ groups and asked them to consider whether the availability of ectogenesis would change their views about the morality of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. The women in Cannold’s study gave responses that did not map onto the dominant tropes in the philosophical literature. Yet Cannold did not attempt to reason with her participants, and her engagement with the philosophical literature is oddly limited, focussing only on the pro-choice perspective. In this paper, I explore the question of whether Cannold is correct that philosophers’ reasoning about abortion is lacking in some way. I suggest that there are alternative conclusions to be drawn from the data she gathered and that a critical approach is necessary when attempting to undertake philosophy informed by empirical data.

Why True Believers Make the Ultimate Sacrifice: Sacred Values, Moral Convictions, or Identity Fusion?

Recent research has identified three promising candidates for predicting extreme behavior: sacred values, moral convictions, and identity fusion. Each construct is thought to motivate extreme behavior in unique ways: Sacred values trigger extreme actions when people are asked to compromise cause-related values for personal gain; moral convictions trigger extreme actions when a cause is aligned with one’s moral compass; and identity fusion triggers extreme actions when a cause is inextricably associated (“fused”) with the personal self. In six studies, we asked which of the three constructs (either alone or in combination) was most predictive of sacrifice for a cause. We measured all three constructs with respect to either of two causes: gun rights (Studies 1–3) or abortion rights (4–6). The outcome measure was endorsement of fighting and dying for the cause. Although all three constructs were significant predictors of the outcome measure when considered separately, identity fusion consistently emerged as the strongest predictor of endorsement of self-sacrifice when all three were considered simultaneously. This pattern occurred regardless of the target cause (gun or abortion rights), the participant’s position on the cause (i.e., pro-gun or anti-gun, pro-choice, or pro-life), or nationality (American vs. Spanish). Also, there was no evidence that the predictors interacted to predict the outcome measure. Finally, a manipulation that threatened the validity of the personal self strengthened the relationship between endorsement of self-sacrifice and both (a) identity fusion and (b) moral convictions. The latter finding suggests that threats to the validity of one’s self-views may amplify the extreme behaviors of true believers.

Abortion Bans and College Drop-Outs

What seems like a resounding victory for pro-life advocates will have an unintended consequence: derailing the educational plans of millions of Americans—women and men.

Colonialism, Human Rights, and Abortion in Ireland

This essay explores the role of narratives in the field of the Irish abortion debate. In specific, it explores the different types of narratives that both the pro-choice and pro-life groups manipulate in order to draw support from The Irish populace. The author explains that the pro-choice groups employ political-legal narratives To argue for the right to abortion whereas historical narratives and anti-British sentiments are more commonly found within pro-life narratives. However, the true purpose of the pro-life narratives is to prevent the secularization and liberalization of Ireland's laws, thereby maintaining the patriarchy at the top of the social hierarchy. However, with the 2018 referendum on the constitutional ban on abortion resulting in a liberalization of Ireland's abortion laws, the lack of success on The pro-life end is revealed, and a possible wave of liberalization may follow to permanently shift the social hierarchy.

ABORTION: A NEVER-ENDING INTERDISCIPLINARY DEBATE

This study is the second part of the examination, considering the multifaceted feature of debates surrounding the termination of pregnancy. Although we may suppose that the so-called pro-life and pro-choice supporters have already paved their rigid ways of thinking with no possibility or hope for any modification, it might come as a surprise to learn that even Christian and Buddhist points of view can be tuned. Health-related disciplines, such as psychology keep reflecting on the issues of abortion with more and more emphasis on the post period of it.

Pro-Life and Feminist Mobilization in the Struggle over Abortion in Mexico: Church Networks, Elite Alliances, and Partisan Context

ABSTRACT This article comparatively analyzes the strategies and political impact of “pro-life” and feminist movements in the struggle over abortion policy in Mexico. Drawing on extensive fieldwork, it argues that anti-abortion movements are more likely to influence policymaking in contexts where they can tap into hegemonic religious institutions’ networks and alliances and indirectly provide incumbents with legitimizing moral and financial support in exchange for restrictive reforms. Partisan contexts shape incumbents’ need for such support. Feminist activists, by contrast, have neither elite connections nor access to similar mobilization resources. To make this argument, the analysis examines pro-life and feminist movements in two Mexican states: Yucatán, where Congress passed a restrictive reform; and Hidalgo, where an identical initiative failed.

At the Borders of the Body Politic: Fetal Citizens, Pregnant Migrants, and Reproductive Injustices in Immigration Detention

To analyze intersecting power relations in reproductive and immigration politics, I examine Garza v. Hargan (an appellate case regarding unaccompanied immigrant minors’ abortion rights) alongside systemic injustices in immigration detention (e.g., exposure to miscarriage risks, coerced sterilization, shackling). These injustices, I argue, emerge from conflicts and compromises over fetal citizenship within the American radical right. Although pro-life and anti-immigrant discourses assume opposing logics of citizenship, respectively interpreting immigrants’ fetuses as “fetal citizens” or “anchor babies,” these contradictions are neutralized by two techniques. Debilitation (systematic degradation of a disposable population) enables the appearance of fetal protection to coexist with de facto exposure to death, injury, and risk. Paralegality (quasi-legal policy making by enforcement agents) allows situational shifts in the meaning of fetal citizenship and adjustments to the pro-life/anti-immigrant compromise. Both obscure culpability for reproductive injustice, reinforce interlocking oppressions, and control women’s bodies in order to control the body politic’s demographic future.