From: C
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 8:24 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Implicit contract and evictionism…continued

Professor Block,

I would like to delve a bit deeper into the discussion…

You say, “My claim is that the mother has the right only to evict the fetus.”  I believe your argument is along the lines that the baby dying, while a consequence of the eviction, is separate from the eviction.

Do you distinguish between circumstances surrounding the eviction?  If the fetus is removed intact and left to die, then the eviction precedes the death, however, in the more common circumstance, the eviction cannot take place without first killing the fetus.  In other words, the killing is a necessary component of the eviction, not an after the fact consequence.

Respectfully,

C

Dear C:

In the third semester, the baby may be removed from the fetus and he need not die. That’s based on present medical technology. As this improves, the viability outside the womb will come earlier and earlier. Killing the fetus first, and then removing him from the womb, is not an eviction. It is abortion; e.g., murder, in my view. The only exception is to save the mother’s life or health.

Best regards,

Walter

The Best of Walter E. Block