Skyler Collins asked for my thoughts on this article about "evictionism" -which concedes the pro-life position that a fetus is entitled to rights (i.e. we must not kill them), but also concedes the pro-choice argument that women have a right to their own bodies.
The evictionist compromise then, is that a woman cannot kill her fetus, but she can evict it if the doctor does so in a "gentle manner" that is simply intended to remove the fetus rather than to kill it. A central component of this theory is that fetal viability occurs earlier and earlier as technology advances, allowing us to respect the woman's right to choose while simultaneously respecting the baby's right to life.
Here is a video in which the theory's foremost proponent Walter Block, explains and defends eviction:
Criticisms of Evictionism
Here's what I told Skyler:
I think subjecting a child to the danger inherent in something like "gentle eviction" is tantamount to child abuse. A fetus requires the nourishing environment of a womb to grow and develop- it's part of its nature. Removing it necessarily endangers it and subjects it to unnecessary and life-threatening risks. If they found a parent subjecting her six year old to physical danger (for example, leaving her in a car for hours on a sweltering summer day), the parent would be liable for criminal charges of child endangerment. I don't see how this is any different.