Objectivist position on... Abortion

[Evoken]

-Polygamy

-Abortion

Is there any argument for or against these from an Objectivist point of view?

Thanks in advance,

Evo

Edited February 16, 2007 by Evoken

[DarkWaters]

-Polygamy

-Abortion

Is there any argument for or against these from an Objectivist point of view?

Thanks in advance,

Evo

Both of these topics are widely discussed on other threads in this forum. If you have any questions on some of the content on those threads, I would be happy to discuss them with you. Here is a polygamy thread and here is an abortion thread. Please note that you can search through the topics on this forum using a feature that is in the top right portion of the website.

I find this essay on abortion to be especially good. Leonard Peikoff is the intellectual and legal heir of Ayn Rand.

[LaszloWalrus]

The threads do not count as the "Objectivist position." Here is what Ayn Rand had to say about abortion:

"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"

[Evoken]

Both of these topics are widely discussed on other threads in this forum. If you have any questions on some of the content on those threads, I would be happy to discuss them with you. Here is a polygamy thread and here is an abortion thread. Please note that you can search through the topics on this forum using a feature that is in the top right portion of the website.

I find this essay on abortion to be especially good. Leonard Peikoff is the intellectual and legal heir of Ayn Rand.

Thanks for the links.

Focusing first on abortion. From what I read in the thread you linked to and the article by Peikoff, I think the Objectivist position can be summed up thus:

-A fetus does not has rights until it becomes a person.

-A fetus becomes a person that possesses rights at birth, not at conception.

-The woman has the right to abort the fetus at any time during pregnancy, whether it is one month or eight months, it doesn't matters.

-As long as the fetus is biologically linked to her, it is part of her body and since she has right over her body then she has right over the fetus.

-After birth, the fetus now being a person has rights of it's own which the mother cannot violate because it is no longer biologically linked to her.

Is this a correct presentation of the Objectivist position on abortion?

Thanks,

Evo

[softwareNerd]

Whether or not it's a good summary depends on your purpose. What you've listed is okay as a simple set of "rules", but don't hint at any reasons. The only place where your summary points to a reason is in the last point, and that part "because...etc." is not correct (in the sense, that it not a "because" even to the extent it is true). If you're looking for a summary that helps you hold the idea in your own mind (as opposed to some other purpose), then I suggest you try a summary that begins with a brief understanding of rights, because your question is about one particular right. Think about it this way: if one asks, "does a woman have the right to tattoo her body", one would need to set the context of rights in the explanation.

Here is my quick attempt (may be leaving out something, but I'm phrasing it in a way one might hold it in one's mind, rather than a way one might -- say -- present it in a debate):

Background: Men can gain much from trade with other men, as long as they trade and are not cheated or enslaved. Centuries of monarchies and tyrannies, and even democracies set the background to the realization of what is needed: individual rights.

Summary: Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

Context: The way we arrive at the need for rights has nothing to do with life as such and in general: i.e. nothing to with plant life, animal life, etc. The only validation we have is in the context of human beings trying to live in a society. If humans were different, we may not arrive at the idea of rights: for instance if men were more animal-like or perpetual children or simply lunatics most of the time. If all of mankind were born as siamese twins, we'd need some different rules too.

Right to one's body: One type of right is the right to do what one wishes with one's own body. So, one may decide to live or die, to tattoo oneself, to cut off a body part, to cut one's hair, to constrain the flow of body fluids from one part of one's body to another, to scrape off cells that are forming on some part of one's body including in one's uterus, to plant cells to grow on some other part, and to stop the growth of the part of one's body called the fetus.

In anticipation of a common follow-on: once the child is born, it is no longer part of one's body. So, one's claims to do what one wills with one's child does not flow from the rights to one's own body. To the extent that we think it's a valid right for a guardian, we have to look at other facts of reality to see if it makes sense. (But, that's going far beyond your question.)

[Evoken]

Thanks for your post softwareNerd.

What happens if a couple has sex without taking the necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy? If the woman ends up pregnant, then is she still on her rights to abort? Can there be an instance in which the woman forsakes her right and must carry on with the pregnancy?

Also, lets say that in this case, the husband wants the woman to carry on with the pregnancy but the woman wants an abortion. Since the fetus is inside the woman and the woman has right over her body, then we can say that the woman has the last word on this issue?

Evo

Edited February 26, 2007 by Evoken

[softwareNerd]

What happens if a couple has sex without taking the necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy? If the woman ends up pregnant, then is she still on her rights to abort?

Yes, she does. Her right to abort does not arise from the fact that it was an unchosen pregnancy; it arises from her right to her body.

Can there be an instance in which the woman forsakes her right and must carry on with the pregnancy?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. If the woman wants to carry on and have the child, then she may; but, you couldn't be asking that. So, are you perhaps asking if she can carry on and then change her mind before the baby is born? If so, then, yes, the woman can change her mind.

Also, lets say that in this case, the husband wants the woman to carry on with the pregnancy but the woman wants an abortion. Since the fetus is inside the woman and the woman has right over her body, then we can say that the woman has the last word on this issue?

Yes, she does. This would be true even if they had a prior friendly understanding that she would carry a baby to term -- she can still change her mind.

[DarkWaters]

What happens if a couple has sex without taking the necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy? If the woman ends up pregnant, then is she still on her rights to abort? Can there be an instance in which the woman forsakes her right and must carry on with the pregnancy?

In this case, Objectivism would say that the woman still should not lose her legal right to an abortion. I do not think there are any circumstances where a woman should lose her legal right to abortion according to Objectivism.

Of course, having the legal right to an action is different from saying that the action is moral. For instance, an ideal Capitalist society would secure everyone's right to smoke themselves stupid with marijuana or binge drink dangerous amounts of alcohol. The nature of government is not to prevent man from being immoral.

In my personal opinion, I think that any woman who recklessly engages in sex without protection, incurs an undesired pregnancy but waits until she is late in the stages of pregnancy to seek an abortion is morally reprehensible.

Also, lets say that in this case, the husband wants the woman to carry on with the pregnancy but the woman wants an abortion. Since the fetus is inside the woman and the woman has right over her body, then we can say that the woman has the last word on this issue?

Yes. It is her body and her life, she ultimately should have the final decision on this matter. Of course, the husband is welcome to offer to take full responsibility to care for the child.

I hope that this helps!

Edited February 26, 2007 by DarkWaters

[Evoken]

Yes, she does. Her right to abort does not arise from the fact that it was an unchosen pregnancy; it arises from her right to her body.

...

Yes, she does. This would be true even if they had a prior friendly understanding that she would carry a baby to term -- she can still change her mind.

Alright, this answers my question.

Evo

[Evoken]

Of course, having the legal right to an action is different from saying that the action is moral. For instance, an ideal Capitalist society would secure everyone's right to smoke themselves stupid with marijuana or binge drink dangerous amounts of alcohol. The nature of government is not to prevent man from being immoral.

I guess it would depend, no? Someone that is high because he smoke some marijuana has the potential to harm other people, a drunken man has the same potential. Anyone that is drugged or drunken is no longer using reason, or at least his ability to reason is hindered, so his interaction with the environment and with other humans will be flawed and may lead to disastrous results.

In my personal opinion, I think that any woman who recklessly engages in sex without protection, incurs an undesired pregnancy but waits until she is late in the stages of pregnancy to seek an abortion is morally reprehensible.

That is my opinion too.

I hope that this helps!

Yes, yours and softwareNerd''s input has been helpful and is really appreciated.

Evo

Edited February 26, 2007 by Evoken

[RationalBiker]

I cringed when I saw a new thread with the A-word in the title. Fortunately it appears this one is of such sufficient specificity that it may come to resolution without thread closures and chair throwing. Thanks for the excellent responses.

[softwareNerd]

In my personal opinion, I think that any woman who recklessly engages in sex without protection, incurs an undesired pregnancy but waits until she is late in the stages of pregnancy to seek an abortion is morally reprehensible.

That is my opinion too.

And she might well be reprehensible, but personally, I'd want more facts about why she did what she did. For instance, reckless sex may not impunge a person's whole character; depending on age and other circumstances, it could be an understandable loss of self-control. (Not her proudest moment, but not damning either.) Every immoral act doesn't make a person reprehensible. Still, this example is mostly about the waiting. Here too, it's really quite understandable that a girl brought up by certain families, in certain communities would be hesitant about such a decision, either because she thinks abortion is wrong, or she is afraid of social reaction. Not moral, for sure, but in many cases I'd say that extreme hesitation may not damn her as an immoiral person.

Still, if she's a full grown woman, then one would wonder why she waited. Even if the sex was reckless, was the waiting reckless? Did the father have a change of mind? Or did she grow up in a culture that equated abortion with murder and was she convinced that it was evil. Did she only have a change of mind as she slowly understood all the ramifications of having a baby. Did she slowly change her mind, reject the selflessness of unwanted motherhood and decide to do what she ought to have done all along?

According to a web-site that was the first one in Google, in the US, over 30% of legal abortions are for women 19 or younger, with less than 50% for women older than 25. Of all abortions, more than half were performed within 8 weeks of gestation, and less than 2% beyond 21 weeks. So, the actual incidence of mature women who're waiting and not having an early abortion is very small. My guess is that the real immorality in many of their cases is that they have accepted an unearned guilt taught to them by others.

Also, the really reckless women are the ones who don't change their minds and have an abortion, but simply shrug it off and have the baby that they really don't want and aren't quite sure how they'll support.

No, do not absolve the reckless late-term abortion-seeker; but, neither rush to conclusions.

Edited February 26, 2007 by softwareNerd

[DarkWaters]

No, do not absolve the reckless late-term abortion-seeker; but, neither rush to conclusions.

These are great points. Thank you.

[JMeganSnow]

I guess it would depend, no? Someone that is high because he smoke some marijuana has the potential to harm other people, a drunken man has the same potential. Anyone that is drugged or drunken is no longer using reason, or at least his ability to reason is hindered, so his interaction with the environment and with other humans will be flawed and may lead to disastrous results.

You cannot, in justice, restrict people on the basis of what they may do, only seek redress on the basis of what they have done. So, since marijuana and alcohol don't necessarily lead to damages, people have every right to get stoned out of their minds.

Sorry, there are other threads on this topic. Carry on.