But what if in order to save 0nc’s life one has to ki]1 another person? In some cases that is obviously permissible. In a case I will call Villainous Aggrcssor, you are standing in :1 meadow, innocently minding your own business, and 21 truck suddenly heads toward you. You try to sidestep the truck, but it tums as you tum. Now you can sec the driver: he is a mam you know has long hated you. What to do? You cannot (...) outrun thc truck. Fortunately, this is not pure nightmare: you just happen to have em antitank gun with you, and can blow up the truck. Of course, if you do this you will kill thc driver, but that does not matter; it is morally permissible for you to blow up thc truck, driver and 211, in defense of your life. (shrink)

I have published more than just a few papers on the abortion issue. Instead of taking either the pro choice or the pro life position, I offer a third alternative: evictionism. I claim that this perspective, which, as it happens is a principled compromise between the other two positions, is the only one compatible with libertarianism. Wisniewski offers several not unreasonable challenges to my thesis. The present paper is my attempt to refute each and every one of them.

The two main views on the abortion controversy are pro life and pro choice. In my many previous writings on this subject I have offered a third alternative, evictionism. Wisniewski has offered criticisms of this perspective. In Block I argued against Wisniewski, claiming that evictionism was the correct libertarian analysis of this vexing question. Wisniewski constituted a rejoinder to Block, insisting that evictionism constituted an incorrect analysis. The present paper is a response to Wisniewski, in which I again attempt to (...) defend evictionism against his attacks on this doctrine. (shrink)