I do have to say as a pro-life libertarian the current controversy does kind of chip at my convictions, or at least make me think harder about why I believe what I believe. It is an interesting, though needlessly lengthy read. Ultimately I do agree in part with the evictionism argument. Where he writes:
but not to kill it, if technology permits her not to do so.
I would not provide an exception for technology. There is a gray zone between conception and viability where you still don't get to kill it, because viability <> personhood. But once technology reaches a point where you can evict, you may do so. If a person connected to a giant dialysis or life support machine was trespassing on your property, you can NOT evict them without also safely moving the machine they are connected to. You can't just kill someone because they're on your property.
I do have to say as a pro-life libertarian the current controversy does kind of chip at my convictions, or at least make me think harder about why I believe what I believe. It is an interesting, though needlessly lengthy read. Ultimately I do agree in part with the evictionism argument. Where he writes:
I would not provide an exception for technology. There is a gray zone between conception and viability where you still don't get to kill it, because viability <> personhood. But once technology reaches a point where you can evict, you may do so. If a person connected to a giant dialysis or life support machine was trespassing on your property, you can NOT evict them without also safely moving the machine they are connected to. You can't just kill someone because they're on your property.