Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Palin's Down syndrome child and the right to abortion

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I don't know enough about Palin's values, in totality, what she's giving and what she's gaining by having the child to cast moral judgment on her decision. As long as she's taking responsibility for her child (financial or otherwise) and not asking others to do so, good for her.

At a glance, given that she is running for VP, appears to live a reasonably lucrative life, it does not appear that she is sacrificing much, if anything, having had this child.

Anyone who reads my posts know that I ardently support choice. To me that means either choice, keep it or abort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You've got to be kidding me. Do you mean to imply that individualism, that the very choice of manner in which one lives one's life, is hereditary? The absolute MOST I would grant you is that individualist parents may be more likely to raise an individualist child, but we are not dealing in imprecise likelihoods here. Only the individual herself can choose whether she will accept reason and live accordingly. It has nothing to do with whose genes went into the kid!

No, you misunderstand me. You are correct in asserting that individualist parents are more likely to have individualist children, just as collectivist parents are more likely to have collectivist children. My point is that the birth rate among (individualist) Westerners is falling off precipitously, in part because of the wide acceptance and advocacy of abortions, not just abortion rights. The same is not true for other ethnic groups, most disturbingly, Muslims in Western states. Russia is in a meltdown, demographically, with birth rates long since fallen below the sustaining level. In most of Europe, the same is true for those of Euro ancestry, but not for Muslims, who are rapidly procreating into substantial minorities, and well on their way to majority status. In France the Muslim population is listed at "5-10%" by CIA. That's a pretty wide range, and indicative of the lack of information about exactly how big that population is. The Muslim problems facing the UK internally speak for themselves. The same story repeats, with variations, throughout Northern Europe.

In America, we are still above the sustaining birth rate, but mainly due to a large influx of Latin Americans - largely Catholic and anti-abortion.

So the question remains - does Objectivism deny any responsibility to sustaining the philosophy of Objectivism through future generations, or are we engaged in morally-correct societal suicide pact?

I don't propose that the answer lies in the question. Like I said, it's a conundrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the question remains - does Objectivism deny any responsibility to sustaining the philosophy of Objectivism through future generations, or are we engaged in morally-correct societal suicide pact?

I don't propose that the answer lies in the question. Like I said, it's a conundrum.

You have completely misunderstood me and are coming close to misrepresenting my position. Individualists are convinced to become so by intellectual activism, not by popping out kids! It's true that parents may be the first, best intellectual advocates, but they are hardly the only ones nor need they be the definitive ones. Some remarkable individuals may arrive at a philosophy of reason almost entirely on their own! My parents are great and they did a good job with me, for the most part, but I did not derive my ideas from them, and my philosophy, as well as my life path, is quite different from either of theirs. Moreover I have seen many kids of ostensibly loving, rational parents crash and burn while kids from terrible situations that would seem to be toxic to the formation of a rational individual nevertheless turn out very well, and do well for themselves. It comes down to CHOICE. The choice to be rational, or not. The choice to have mental discipline, or not. The choice to integrate, or to evade. That is IT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have completely misunderstood me and are coming close to misrepresenting my position....

I apologize - I was going by what "at absolute most" you would grant me. (Never cede in principle what you wouldn't in practice.)

My point is that under some cultures, one of which is rapidly expanding its influence in Western Civilization from the inside, that CHOICE does NOT EXIST. Apostasy is punishable by death in mainstream Islamic circles, and is explicitly called for, in both principle and practice, in the ideology formulated by the founder of Islam and followed to this day by its most literal adherents.

If Western civilization continues down the path of limited reproductive practice, we are going to see an inevitable rise in the hegemony of those who would thwart not just reproductive rights, but all human rights. That's not a justification for limiting reproductive rights, but it does play a part in determining the morality of the choice. Doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few points on Nicholas' posting, hopefully this will add clarity.

After all, the choice to have a child is a profoundly selfish choice; that is, a choice that is an expression of the parent's personal desire to create new life.

I’d say it can be and ought to be a selfish choice, but it doesn’t have to be.

Here I think is the power of Nicholas’ argument. I think it’s the reason there is an uproar:

And most parents seek to create healthy life; in the case of the unborn fetuses shown to have severe developmental disabilities, one study reports that over 90% of these fetuses are aborted prior to birth. But if you notice, the anti-abortion zealots try to attach a dirty little slur to these abortions, labeling them a form of eugenics.

Abortions of severely disabled fetuses are “eugenics” is the claim. This is their pejorative term for the desire to have a healthy baby, a perfectly rational and moral desire. These people are using the term “eugenics” to refer to the practice of the state forcing people to have/not have children for genetic reasons. The thing that is bad about eugenics is the state forcing its will on the individual, not the decision to have or not have a baby. But note, it is the anti-abortionists who want to use the state to force people en-mass to have babies, not Objectivists. It is they who want to uphold the evil aspect of eugenics: force.

The choice should lie with the mother, because it is her life that is at stake and it is her body that is in question. Nobody has sovereignty over her body except her, as per individual rights. So, Objectivists are against eugenics, in that we are against the state forcing people to have or not to have children. Anti-abortionists are not for eugenics, but they are for using the power of the state to force a woman to bring a child to term, which is evil.

So in the anti-abortion advocate's eyes, a parent's desire to raise healthy children by squelching unhealthy fetuses while the are still in the womb is little more than a pernicious quest, but it is not considered a pernicious quest to knowingly bring severely disabled children into this world. On the contrary, such a choice is held out as an great example of upstanding morality

They don’t consider the quality of life of the child who is brought into the world, or the quality of life of the mother (or father) that must take care of the child. They make no mention of that, do they? Suffering is of no consequence to them. They call this “pro life”. I think if any case brought to life the immorality of the “pro-life” movement it is the Terry Schiavo case. Terry’s brain was completely destroyed, yet these people strangely advocated keeping her breathing, as if she was some kind of Frankenstein experiment to make them feel good about themselves. If any case was a reductio ad absurdum of the "pro-life" movement, that one was.

I value life as much as anyone, but I value real life, not life as a vegetable. That’s not something to be valued. Seeking out pain and suffering is not moral.

To be sure, I’m aware that many pro-life people just see the movement as supporting life, but I think these people should look at cases like the Terry Schiavo case as examples that make it clear this isn’t the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm using his own words: The choice to have a child is a "profoundly selfish" one. Palin has a very principled value system when it comes to abortion: she believes, in epistemological terms, that the human entity begins at conception. Given that, her choice reflects her value/belief in the sanctity of the individual life, and reflects a rational self-interest.

Bingo. One can only make an argument such as Nicholas' by assuming a motivation on the part of Palin. The argument that Nicholas' assumption is validated by others who he deems irrational represents an inherent flaw in the logic. Ascribing an arbitrary motivation to action, and then judging that motivation based on one's own value system and extending that judgment to the action itself is logically indefensible.

As softwareNerd has alluded to we are assuming a certain context. For Sarah Palin we are assuming the context of her public positions and statements on the issue. Her political stance is that abortion should be illegal because rights should apply from the moment of conception. Important here is the morality from which this position flows -- it is an altruist morality informed by religious belief in a God -- meaning that it is an irrational, immoral (from the point of view of life) position. That is enough for me to dismiss the rabid rantings of religious zealots out of hand. (I would love for one of them to confirm from this "logic" that God himself is the greatest abortionist of all time). And it is enough for me to dismiss Palin's political stance as unreasonable. Mr. Provenzo isn't ascribing an arbitrary motivation to her actions he is ascribing a very specific, publicly held one.

The context we are assuming for Nicholas Provenzo is his publicly stated affirmation of Objectivist principle. In this sense he means a certain thing when he refers to selfishness, morality and rationality. There is only one objective reality, there is only one rationality and there is only one rational self-interest. Which is not to say that there is only one way to think about an issue or one way to act, rather it is to affirm that the only way to think properly is to banish irrationality from your mind and that one requirement of selfishness is to never sacrifice your self.

Sarah Palin does not uphold rationality as a virtue and altruistically touts sacrifice so nothing she does could be said to "reflect a rational self-interest". She may stumble upon it every now and then just as the bible may when it commands not to murder or steal, but neither would be a statement of a rationally self-interested principle.

Nevermind that Palin has stated that the principle that guided her choice is the belief that human life is sacred and that human life begins at conception. Objectively, there is nothing illogical about this point of view, except as a semantic difference of what "life" is (i.e., biological v. philosophical) If Nicholas would like to make the case that human life begins at birth, and not at conception, then have at it. If he wants to take the strict Objectivist stand and argue that human life begins at the development of conceptual thought, then let's open up the debate to fourth-trimester abortions. Hell, since the argument seems to focus on the fact that DS people are non-productive and a burden on the rest of us, why not check people's productivity and terminate anyone who is a net burden on society? What is the principle at work in the argument, after all?

The problem with Sarah Palin's position is that she wants to deny this choice to everyone else not based on some logical argument but based on dogmatic grounds and this is something you should be concerned about. Our rights have been slowly eroded and usurped over many years but if the religious right is able to usurp a fundamental right, the right to decide what to do with our own bodies, out in the open on dogmatic grounds, then all rights are up for grabs for any reason whatsoever.

[...] If he wants to take the strict Objectivist stand and argue that human life begins at the development of conceptual thought, [...]

Rand did not have strong feelings about this issue,

Actually, I think she did have strong feelings on the subject. She never equivocated on the issue that women should be allowed to decide what to do with their own bodies.

Also the above is not "the strict Objectivist stand".

You can't get this:

If Nicholas would like to make the case that human life begins at birth, and not at conception, then have at it. If he wants to take the strict Objectivist stand and argue that human life begins at the development of conceptual thought, then let's open up the debate to fourth-trimester abortions. Hell, since the argument seems to focus on the fact that DS people are non-productive and a burden on the rest of us, why not check people's productivity and terminate anyone who is a net burden on society? What is the principle at work in the argument, after all?

From this:

By [email protected] (Nicholas Provenzo) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

A parent has a moral obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves. Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child's life upon others.

Taken as a whole, in this paragraph Mr. Provenzo not only acknowledges a parent's right to deliver a DS child, but also spells out one reason why it would be immoral to do so. There is no way an honest person could avoid the context of his statement in this paragraph and conclude that he was advocating eugenics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As softwareNerd has alluded to we are assuming a certain context. For Sarah Palin we are assuming the context of her public positions and statements on the issue. Her political stance is that abortion should be illegal because rights should apply from the moment of conception. Important here is the morality from which this position flows -- it is an altruist morality informed by religious belief in a God -- meaning that it is an irrational, immoral (from the point of view of life) position.

I disagree with the bolded text here. No one on this page has made a case for when - exactly - rights begin. That point is consistently evaded. Palin takes the extremist conservative stand that rights begin with the biological life of the human entity, i.e., at the point at which the self-organizing set of cells begins to develop in the uterus. Unless you can make a case for another point at which rights begin, you don't have an absolute basis for rejecting hers. If Objectivists were to conclude that life and rights begin at conception, then the protection of the fetus would be the rational - and moral - stand. So if you want to make a moral judgment on this, you must establish the argument for a later point at which rights begin.

Actually, I think she did have strong feelings on the subject. She never equivocated on the issue that women should be allowed to decide what to do with their own bodies.

Well, within limits...

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.

-Ayn Rand, “A Last Survey,” The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3.

So Ms. Rand establishes the beginning of rights at somewhere between day 91 and day 270. The "piece of protoplasm" argument description is disingenuous [on edit: the argument is not] (assuming Ms. Rand had a fundamental knowledge of human biology), a less provocative version of the pejorative "tumor" or "cyst" used by the zealous pro-abortion contingent to "describe" embryos. The 90 day "essential issue" that Ms. Rand refers to is almost certainly a recognition that all of the facts of reality as well as the relevant options are available to a woman within the first trimester, and that delaying past that point represents an evasion of reality, and so "one may argue" about the morality of later abortions. Fair enough (and if you have a different interpretation of her stand, I'm open to it), but if you invoke "evasion of reality" (and I realize I'm ascribing that concept to her) as a valid argument against 2nd & 3rd term abortions, why can't you also invoke it for 1st term abortion, given that the embryo is caused by a conscious choice (in the overwhelming majority of cases) to have sex without effective birth control. Are we arguing here for the morality of pursuing a momentary pleasure while evading the consequences of that action? Or can we concede that abortion is a choice to expunge the consequences of an earlier choice that evaded reality?

My take from Ms. Rand's statement on this issue is that she sees two principles working in opposition: a woman's right to avoid the consequences of a poor choice, a mishap, or a violation by force; and the incipient rights of a human entity as it develops towards birth and adulthood. The morality of the choice made depends upon the woman's values, and can only be judged in relation to those values, not the values held by another or by the values imagined by another to be held by her. So my argument is not that keeping the child is moral or that aborting it is moral, but that the decision, as long as it is made by the woman without outside coercion, must be respected as moral. The confusion/evasion on this thread is that we can use our judgment of Palin's political stand on abortion (i.e., coercing the choice not to abort) to judge the morality of her un-coerced, personal choice. That line of logic is simply incorrect.

Condemn her for her politics, but not for her personal choices, or you risk invalidating your political argument by association with a flawed argument on her personal choice. In any case, Nicholas' choice to argue with intentional provocation was counter-productive to the intent of his argument, and as such was irrational.

Edited by agrippa1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the bolded text here. No one on this page has made a case for when - exactly - rights begin. That point is consistently evaded.

Rights begin at birth. This is because this is when the mother is separated from the new born and thus each can be treated as separate entities with rights.

Btw, John Locke himself said rights begin at birth, although he didn't go into any depth in the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you can make a case for another point at which rights begin, you don't have an absolute basis for rejecting hers.

I most certainly do. Her case is based on religious dogma and I may dismiss it out of hand just as I may dismiss the existence of God out of hand.

If Objectivists were to conclude that life and rights begin at conception, then the protection of the fetus would be the rational - and moral - stand.

But Objectivists haven't and wouldn't confuse a potential human being with an actual human being just as they wouldn't confuse an acorn with an oak tree. "Human being" has a definite definition.

Well, within limits...

Ayn Rand did say "one could argue" so I should have been more precise and said: she never equivocated on the issue that women have the Right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

My take from Ms. Rand's statement on this issue is that she sees two principles working in opposition: a woman's right to avoid the consequences of a poor choice, a mishap, or a violation by force; and the incipient rights of a human entity as it develops towards birth and adulthood.

I don't think so. As I said Miss Rand never equivocated on a woman's absolute Right to do with her body as she wished. And she never proposed that a non-human being has Rights. A woman has no Right to avoid the consequences of her actions, in fact reality denies her this. However, the choice to get pregnant is reversible, which of course comes with its own set of consequences.

The morality of the choice made depends upon the woman's values, and can only be judged in relation to those values, not the values held by another or by the values imagined by another to be held by her. So my argument is not that keeping the child is moral or that aborting it is moral, but that the decision, as long as it is made by the woman without outside coercion, must be respected as moral. The confusion/evasion on this thread is that we can use our judgment of Palin's political stand on abortion (i.e., coercing the choice not to abort) to judge the morality of her un-coerced, personal choice. That line of logic is simply incorrect.

You are still equivocating on the term "morality". As I said when Mr. Provenzo or I talk about morality we are speaking of an objective morality. A morality that isn't dependent upon any one person's wishes. A morality that is dependent only upon the facts of reality.

So when judging Sarah Palin's choices we are comparing them to an objective code of morality and her political stands and personal morality are fair game.

In any case, Nicholas' choice to argue with intentional provocation was counter-productive to the intent of his argument, and as such was irrational.

Have you read some of the replies to his blog. I'm afraid that any stance other than "only God has the right to abort a zygote" is seen by these fanatics as "intentionally provacative".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm dropping off this one. I agree with the judgment of Palin's political stand wrt abortion. Her personal choice, however, is a damned-either-way issue. (imagine if she aborted her fetus while calling for abortion to be outlawed!)

If she was politically pro-choice, but personally chose to bring her DS child to term, there would be no discussion here. That means that her personal choice is essentially a "don't care" in the two-by-two personal/political matrix, and all of the objection here has to do with whether or not she advocates limits on abortion.

I just watched Democratic "leadership" gloating over their coup-d'etat of our capitalist system, and am shaking my head at the probability that many of the people who brought us CRA, MBS and now EESA will be re-elected based on the abortion issue, along with, potentially, an overtly communist President, and will proceed early next year to systematize their new-won socialist system.

(edit: typo, and removed a couple of "parting shots" - irrelevant)

Edited by agrippa1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...