This is just some selected quotes from the Being Tossed From Airplanes article:
The argument, in short, is that the mother has a property right over her body and therefore she can evict all persons from her body.
But a pregnancy is not so much like a house. It is more like an airplane while in flight. If I invite Bill onto my airplane, there is an unspoken contract between Bill and myself that provides for Bill’s safety until he can remove himself from my property without death.
The assumption being made is that property rights must be contractual rather than innate. This is purely humanistic. Property rights, including the right to life, are natural and intrinsic, not based on knowledge or contact. Not based on human relationships or institutions. The visitor on the airplane is protected because he’s another human, not just because there is a contract. This is really the crux of the problem. Do ethics and human value come from our own personal understanding, or from something much more objective and transcendent? If ethics simply come from utilitarian studies of human action and what most (though not all) of us think of as “good”, then what keeps me from giving a surprise “eviction” to an invited neighbor with double-aught buckshot? No warning needed. Why is the contract valuable? Why are interpersonal understandings valuable? The secularist does not have answers to these questions.
To demonstrate the absurdity of the pro-abort view from this perspective (mostly anarchists and left libertarians), consider if an airplane handyman fell asleep and accidentally became a stowaway. Is it ethically permissible to kick him out of the flying plane? After all, the handyman did not willingly trespass on the private property. It is important to note that the handyman did not knowingly trespass. According to the logic of evictionism, the only relevant fact is that the handyman did NOT enter into any sort of spoken or unspoken contract with the owner of lawful steward of the airplane. With no such contract existing, the sleepy-storway-handyman could be promptly tossed from 40,000 feet.
This unlikely but poignant scenario shows the failure of an ethical system that is firmly based in mutually understood consent, understanding, and personal autonomy rather than based in the innate value of humanity. Note that I am NOT against contracts, consent of the use of property, and other basic property rights, however those rights are based in something more fundamental and innate than our own reasoning. We should have basic personal rights, but the value of human life must be more foundational than a right to bodily autonomy, or else you lose all rights. Including property rights.
And we must not stop at the value of human beings. Why are human beings valuable? God’s Word makes this plain in Genesis 1:27.
“So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.”
God further demonstrates the value His Image Bearers have in Genesis 9:6.
“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.”
Simply put, human beings have value because we are created in the image of God. The destruction of that Image of God is nothing short of a direct violation of God’s Law. Without this basic foundation, ethical systems such as Rothbardian Evictionism become absurd on its face. Their foundation, whether it is the Non-Aggression-Principle or anything else, is built on nothing but insistence. Why is aggression bad? Why should I even care? Many secularists may come to the conclusion of the basic inhumanity of abortion and the indefensibly of the bodily autonomy argument. They can logically see the inconsistencies within such a system, and only the most cold individual would not clearly see the injustice of tossing innocent people from airplanes because of property rights. With that said, in order to justify their thoughts and feelings, they must appeal to some sort of standard. However, the secularist has no standard.
Understanding that bodily autonomy and evictionism arguments are intellectual and ethical failures also simplifies the question of rape conceived preborn. The preborn, even in the case of rape, is an innocent party and is under basic human protection. This protection is extended with or without the permission of the rightful owner of the body, i.e. the mother. Why? Because the value of human life is more foundational than the right of personal autonomy.
To really bring it home, if a violent and evil man secretly places a baby onto an airplane, the airplane owner has no right to “merely” evict the innocent baby once the airplane is in the air.
In fact, the owner or rightful stewards of the airplane have a moral and legal obligation to care for that innocent baby.
How can this be any more obvious? There are only two options. The respect of protecting of God given life, or outright barbarism.
Our society has chosen barbarism, in knowing and explicit rebellion against God, against Christ, against God’s Law-Word.
And thus, our society will be destroyed by God – somewhat indirectly I believe, as opposed to actual fire from the sky. (Although that is possible.) It will be made clear that it is our own sin, our own lawlessness, our own failure, our own evil will to Satanic power, that will drive the logical consequences that shall utterly destroy our civilization.
But it is the power and will of God that undergirds and gives strength to the law of consequences. Not some impersonal (and so, available for use and subversion by men) Karma or Natural Law.
And it is the supernatural will of God – explicit, clear, direct, personal, holy, transcendent, and flawless – that will judge us to our faces after we die.
For there is no escape in death, from His holy and unceasing wrath.
It is best that we humble ourselves before God’s face, and repent today.
PS:It is noted in the article that the best pro-about arguments pre-suppose personhood as well. It’s just that personhood means nothing, unless you value the live of the person and the power of innocence.
After all, a thief who breaks in your house at night is a person, and you definitely have the right to shot him so far as Biblical Law is concerned.
It is the value of an innocent human life that is the point here.
At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. — Matthew 18:2-6