My errors on abortion came from a basic confusion. First, here is me:
“If the woman needs to wait, she is sacrificing her time. Time has a market value, as people know, called interest. Is there a way to quantify exactly how much she is losing? Exactly how much of a loss is she suffering merely by the person being on her land? She could own a farm, and this person may be messing up her crops. Is there is a precise point at which her loss crosses his death probability that its okay for her to evict him? Now this is a thorny issue, and I concede I don’t know the answer. It may just be a simple matter of convention.
Now I could imagine a libertarian saying, any loss whatsoever is a violation of her property rights, and is therefore permissible for her to evict him. However, under this view, would it not follow that I may use my bazooka if that’s all I had on hand at the moment? Any possible inconvenience may be interpreted as a loss.”
Now my error is expressed adequately by none other than Jeremy Bentham:
“Legislation is a circle with the same center as moral philosophy,
but its circumference is smaller.”
We must remember that the following of a general rule or principle is for the maximization of the well-being of society in the long-term. Often, it may seem the short-term consequences are detrimental. Therefore, my position is that any loss whatsoever, as evaluated by the woman, ought to be considered as a violation of her property rights and provide adequate grounds for the enforcement of these rights. However, she must be able to prove this loss in a court of law, if it even came to that.
How could a baby sue? The baby would not sue. It would be akin to a murder case, in which the woman would be arguing that she was enforcing her legal property rights. However, I expect that many of these would not even come to court since the woman would probably provide irrefutable evidence that she was suffering a loss as a result of the pregnancy. In fact, I expect that many hospitals would go through a screening process to see if the woman was suffering a loss, so that they may not be held liable.
Now this is just the legal grounds, which in not way provides an explanation of the situation’s morality. I will not attempt in this post to dive into this. Of course, everything that is illegal ought to be immoral. However, this still leaves room for much more explanation on the moral part.