Original comment from November 23, 2011

This is going to be fairly long rant. It's something I've been meaning to put down for a while, so this diatribe is probably more for me than you. Hopefully it will be rational critiqued.

I feel that Libertarians/AnCaps/followers-of-the-NAP are largely forced to take this extreme view on evictionism. I'm a biased person, I was pro-life long before I started calling myself an AnCap, and I looked for arguments to justify that bias. I would submit that many libertarians, the majority of whom are pro-choice, did the same thing.

No one has found a universal truth for when you can't harm life. It's wrong to kill a full grown adult without an initiation of aggression; it's not wrong to kill a plant. You then get varying degrees of what you can kill. For and example of consistency some libertarians believe you shouldn't kill certain animals or even should be a vegan.

Life is not the criteria that gives something the right to not be killed (bacteria, plants). Human life is not even the criteria as a single cell is human life. Unique human life doesn't quite get you there either as certain tumors meet this criteria. It seems to come down to all the previous things coupled with a concept or some combination of personhood/awareness/consciousness/sentience (PACS). There are some pretty solid markers in your development as a human: conception, implantation, birth, and death. At no point in that process is there a definitive moment when PACS occurs. I'm not sure there can be an empirical answer to the question. A lot of people don't think it makes sense to give a few cells human rights so they're forced to pic some point in the future.

Libertarians philosophy largely condenses down to self ownership. A founding tenant of self ownership is that no one has an innate right to any part of you (your physical being or actions). The common view among libertarians is that the only way to gain a right to someone else is if a contract (implicit, or explicit) is assented too.

Statist:

"You want to let poor people die."

Libertarians:

"Of course we don't, but you can't force me to help another person. If you can then I do not own myself."

Blocks Evictionsim has become a popular argument for legitimizing abortion.

If one wants to hold that eviction of a fetus is legitimate one pretty much has to hold the view that evicting a child is legitimate. Other than location, all of which is probably one's property, there's not much of difference from a fetus seconds before birth and a baby in one's home. If one can't be forced to take care of the unborn, one can't be forced to take care of a child in one's home. According to Block one should do all of this as kindly as possible. One doesn't blow some poor bloke away with a shot gun because he walked across one's lawn, but if they refuse to leave eventually one can use violence to remove them. If the fetus is viable then one can induce labor and then put the baby up for adoption. If one is going to evict one's child one should do so as kindly as possible.

We do strive for consistency.

I used to contend that an implicit contract between parents and progeny, the act of copulating being assent. What quickly get's pointed out is that the act of copulating cannot create a contract because the new human life doesn't exist yet. One can't have a contract with something that doesn't exist. (see johnbranflake response above)

That's why I like properal's reply to johnbranflake. In my opinion "liability" is an excellent point. One doesn't have a contract with the unborn, just like one doesn't have a contract with that bloke one bumped into a river. One's actions are the reason the zygote -> fetus -> child requires assistance to survive. One is not expected to kill oneself to save a drowning person, but one can be expected to do everything in one's power to restore the drowning person to self sufficiency.

So where does my rant get us? I'm not sure it got us anywhere. We're right back snide remarks about tumors and genocide every time someone ejaculates. I believe the NAP applies to unique, human life, with the potential to achieve PACS. I believe that that thing exists at conception, and that one is liable to that thing until it is physically able to fend for itself. Just as I believe that one is liable if one is directly responsible for injuring another person.

Please pardon my spelling and grammar mistakes. Please do not pardon any fallacies or content errors I have made.