Abortion

[intellectualammo]

My current view on the issue is not set in stone--I'm really have little personal bias on the issue, and am curious to know where others draw the line (and where Ayn Rand drew it, if she ever mentioned it.)

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned what Ayn Rand wrote here:

from

The Ayn Rand Letter

Vol. IV, No. 2 November-December 1975

A Last Survey--Part I

"One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable."

This particular quote can also be found on the first page of the Ayn Rand Lexicon edited by Harry Binswanger. I'm not sure if it "helps" any, Randrew, but it at least gives you an idea of the closest "line" that, I have found that Ayn Rand has drawn in regards to the issue of abortion.

[softwareNerd]

Are you're referring to the part that says "One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy"?

If so, combine that with the quotes that AisA provided.

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).....

and

. ...Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality -- and that a human being's life begins at birth.

What Miss Rand is saying it this: that in the early stages of pregnancy, it is pretty clear that one is talking about an embryo, not about a human being. While she holds the position that rights begin at birth, she can understand that some people would be confused by this "line" and would wonder (for instance) what is so different about a baby that is born, and the fetus just (say) 1 day, 1 week, or 1 month before that.

I think she's saying: anyone who wants to ban early abortions is unspeakably evil. However, while she disagrees with those who want to ban later abortions, she does not write them off as evil per se.

[AisA]

My point exactly. This is true even though the infant is not open to reason. So "not open to reason" is irrelevant to the question of whether the fetus has a right to be removed alive rather than killed.

Yes, indeed, many statements become irrelevant when you take them out of context, as you are doing here. If you view my remarks in post 24, you will see that the fact that a fetus is "not open to reason", while a man is open to reason, is relevant -- in the context of what I was discussing in post 24. But if you change the context by switching from your assertion that "a fetus in the womb" should be handled the same way as "a man in one's house", and instead address the narrower issue of whether a fetus has the right to be removed alive, then yes, the fact that the fetus is "not open to reason" becomes irrelevant.

But if a viable fetus has the same rights as a newborn infant (*), then that includes the right not to be killed in the process of removing it from someplace where it doesn't have the right to be.

Why would it include such a right? If the mother can only remove the fetus provided it stays alive, then the fetus has a right greater than the right of the newborn child: it has the right, under certain conditions, to remain alive by using the mother's body against her will. This transforms the right to life to the right to be a biological parasite on an involuntary host.

[hunterrose]

While [Rand] holds the position that rights begin at birth...

Why? Is it because the viable unborn is to be considered a potentiality?

she does not write [those who want to ban later abortions]off as evil per se.

Why not?

[FeatherFall]

Why? Is it because the viable unborn is to be considered a potentiality?

Perhaps she held that position because she recognized that if a fetus had a right to be born, there would be a conflict of rights.

Birthing a child is painful, risky business. To say that a fetus has a "right" to be born would be to say that human survival requires we physically harm the mother. But if we identify the harm to the mother caused by the process of birth as a requirement of human creation, we see that it is clearly not a survival requirement.

Ayn Rand acknowledged that rights are based on man's survival requirements, and also that there are no conflicts of rights. Given this, and given Rand's above quoted statements, the reasoning that leads to the Objectivist position should be painfully clear.

That being said, the question remains, where is it proper to draw the moral line? This is a question that may yeild a different answer for each potential mother, as it is dependent on varrying personal situations and convictions.

[DavidOdden]

Why not?

As far as I know, the dilation and extraction method was invented about 20 years after Rand wrote that, and I don't know what method of last-minute abortion was possible 30 years ago. It is clear that she did not support murdering newborns, and therefore giving birth and then killing the infant would not be acceptable. Although it is beyond any rational question that an abortion in the first trimester was possible without first creating an independent person with rights, it is not as equally evident that this is possible at the end of a pregnancy. That is why it is possible to raise a question about the latter stage of a pregnancy.

[Qwertz]

I like to deprive myself of otherwise perfectly useful and fulfilling sleep by staying awake for hours on end pondering hypotheticals. One on property rights kept me up for three hours the other night. Maybe I'll post it in another forum, but here's an on-topic one, and I guess it goes eventually to the definition of "birth."

Assuming for a moment we take that the line is drawn at birth (whatever that may turn out to be.) Also let's assume that birth is used in the common sense - baby pops out of hole (to put it crudely). What, then, is so different between the (hypothetically) permissible injecting of the fetus with some such poison or another after the beginning of labor and the impermissable injecting of the same such poison immediately after the birth?

Being one of those obnoxious gits who buys into the whole black and white world premise objectivism invariably leads its students to, and for which I have endured endless disparagement from my family members (at whom I always just laugh, smile and say "but mom, yes it is really that simple!"), I often engage in such specific (and perhaps unlikely) exercises as an effort to eliminate any remaining area of grayness which might reside in my understanding between the two. In this case, I came to find that the common sense notion of birth didn't really cohere with the common sense of when rights begin. I thought this (now I apologize if this gets a bit gross, but it does have a point) because the mother in this situation would still have to birth the dead fetus, since labor had already begun. But there was a second interpretation which I float now so as to elicit your (general sense - side note: one nasty thing about English is that it doesn't have both personal and impersonal second person pronouns. I don't want to sound like I'm talking to anyone in particular.) ideas on the matter.

The so-called "partial birth abortion" (a complete misnomer), also termed "dilation and extraction" involves, as the anti-abortionists are so eager to remind us, the artificial dilation of the cervix, the piercing of the amneotic sac, the crushing of the skull of the fetus, the dismemberment of the arms and legs, and the individual removal of the, for lack of a less distasteful word, pieces. (The procedure is messy, distasteful, and the pieces look human, but it should be legal. Don't misread my desire never to watch such a procedure as a belief that such a procedure is immoral.) Now this can (physically) be done basically up until any point prior to the onset of labor. The later it is done, however, the more like birth it becomes for the woman. Never, though, is it exactly like birth (medically - we're not talking the difference between a live baby and a dead one, I'm talking degree of dilation, length of procedure, pain, etc.) But at some point, it becomes much safer and easier just to birth the thing (sorry, I don't know yet what to call it at that point. I'm trying to figure that out.) What that point is, I'm not sure, but from what I can tell it's sometime in the last three or four weeks, and labor could be induced artificially and the babyfetus (or fetusbaby) safely removed "early" with little to no ill effect on the health of the mother or child, provided there isn't some underlying medical condition to complicate the procedure. Providing this option is offered, is this a more rational line to draw? This is what I meant earlier when I was talking about the point at which birth (or something very much like it) becomes inevitable, even as part of an abortion.

I actually rather like this one, because it prevents the undue burden of caring for an extremely premature and potentially severely deficient infant that the 'viable early birth option' discussed earlier from being forced upon either the mother, the hospital, the state, the adoption agency, or the adoptive parents.

Thoughts?

Wow I tend to ramble....

-Q

[mosespa]

Unfortunately, my copy of the Lexicon is in the possession of a friend of mine...but there's a statement about the first trimester being the only appropriate time to consider an abortion.

Or something like that.

I've no doubt that someone will correct me:)

[softwareNerd]

Unfortunately, my copy of the Lexicon is in the possession of a friend of mine...but there's a statement about the first trimester...

See this post above and the few that come after it..

[hunterrose]

I often engage in such specific (and perhaps unlikely) exercises as an effort to eliminate any remaining area of grayness which might reside in my understanding between the two.

You sound like me Watch out, not everyone shares our love for hypotheticals...

But at some point, it becomes much safer and easier just to birth the thing (sorry, I don't know yet what to call it at that point. I'm trying to figure that out.)

Providing this option is offered, is this a more rational line to draw?

If birth is the line the topic speaks of, then it does get quite blurry as birth approaches. But to give you another hypothetical, suppose some morally corrupt woman decides beforehand to have an abortion at the latest possible moment.

If birth here were the line, then she'd have the right to abort during labor, even (theoretically) 10 seconds from birth (I suppose) as she'd have the right to control her biological processes, regardless of her moral status or whether aborting here were ineffective in reducing her pain/effort.

The idea that at some point during labor, abortion does not reduce the physical effort the woman has to go through is a very interesting point, but I'm not totally sure the line can/should be moved back from birth because of that reason. You make good points, though; I'll have to thing about this during work

[Qwertz]

I'll need to ask a doctor, but I wonder if there is a point during labor where abortion as an alternative to birth simply becomes medically impossible. If such a point were to exist (I'd really like to nail this down as specifically as possible), how would that be? Amenable? I'm not *trying* to push the line back, it's just I want to be as accurate as possible about where it actually lies.

I just realized the official topic contains the word "generally." So much for generality..... =]

Though I did just have a thought: perhaps one day in the future, women will wear pregnancies like fashion accessories. And take them off and throw them away when the party is over. Yikes.

-Q

[softwareNerd]

... perhaps one day in the future, women will wear pregnancies like fashion accessories. And take them off and throw them away when the party is over.

Wow! You could sell that line to the 700 Club!!

(I don't say that negatively. I myself sometimes think of one-liners that would make good lines for ),

[AisA]

I'll need to ask a doctor, but I wonder if there is a point during labor where abortion as an alternative to birth simply becomes medically impossible. If such a point were to exist (I'd really like to nail this down as specifically as possible), how would that be? Amenable? I'm not *trying* to push the line back, it's just I want to be as accurate as possible about where it actually lies.

Rights are not a function of the state of medical technology, of what medicine can or cannot do at any point in time. Until the fetus is physically seperated from the mother and no longer living off her physiology, it cannot acquire any rights and the mother has the right to kill it and remove it from her body. That is the line as far as rights are concerned.

If it is true that there is no way to stop labor once it begins, that does not push the line defining the mother's rights any farther back; it would simply mean that the fetus would have to be killed and she would give birth to a dead fetus.

If for some reason there is a point when it is no longer possible to kill the fetus and there is no alternative but to give birth to a living child, (and I cannot imagine why that would be the case with today's medical technology), this does not diminish the mother's rights; it simply means that at present she has no way to exercise her right past a certain point; she must abort prior to that point or take responsibility for the child that results. But this would only be a practical limitation, not a limitation on her rights.

As an analogy, one has the right to have a tumor removed from one's brain ( provided one can find a surgeon willing to do it and provided one can pay for it). If the tumor's location makes it inoperable with current surgical techniques, this does not change one's rights in any way. It simply means that at present one has no way to exercise that particular right.

The principle that rights are not a function of technology also applies to claims concerning the "viability" of the fetus; just as technological limitations do not remove or diminish one's rights, advances in technology do not create new rights. The fact that technological advances make it possible to keep a fetus alive outside the womb at earlier and earlier stages of its development does not endow it with rights or diminish the mother's.

[gags]

Rights are not a function of the state of medical technology, of what medicine can or cannot do at any point in time. Until the fetus is physically seperated from the mother and no longer living off her physiology, it cannot acquire any rights and the mother has the right to kill it and remove it from her body. That is the line as far as rights are concerned.

Under your definition of when rights are acquired, a woman who is 9 months pregnant has the option of ordering doctors to kill her completely viable baby at any time prior to the umbilical cord being cut. I find that rather disturbing.

[B. Royce]

Under your definition of when rights are acquired, a woman who is 9 months pregnant has the option of ordering doctors to kill her completely viable baby at any time prior to the umbilical cord being cut. I find that rather disturbing.

I agree entirely with A is A. This whole question of the dividing line is not blurry at all. The so-called "miracle" of birth is that moment when the fetus fully departs from the womb (natural or artificial) and is a separate entity---a baby. This fact of being out in the world establishes its rights. The concept of "viability" is totally irrelevant.

When you say that you find late-term abortion "disturbing" what exactly do you mean? Your feeling might be caused by calling a fetus a "completely viable baby" instead of a "viable fetus". Calling a fetus a baby has been the central ploy, and/or sloppy thinking, of the anti-abortion crowd since day one.

[DavidOdden]

Until the fetus is physically seperated from the mother and no longer living off her physiology, it cannot acquire any rights and the mother has the right to kill it and remove it from her body.

I get the reasoning, but this also leads to a quandry with Siamese twins, that one twin has the right to kill and remove the other (either twin). This is predicated on the principle that in order to have rights, you must be a physically separate human. Would you conclude that Siamese twins have no rights (if not, why not)?

[gags]

I agree entirely with A is A. This whole question of the dividing line is not blurry at all. The so-called "miracle" of birth is that moment when the fetus fully departs from the womb (natural or artificial) and is a separate entity---a baby. This fact of being out in the world establishes its rights. The concept of "viability" is totally irrelevant.

Given that this is a thread about "where the line is drawn", I vote in favor of drawing it at "viability". I define viability in this context as the point at which the fetus becomes a baby because it can be removed from the mother and would be expected to develop as a healthy individual. I'm not a scientist, so I don't know the exact point in the pregnancy when this viability is achieved. My guess is that it would be sometime late in the second or perhaps during the third trimester. At that point, the mother could end the pregnancy if she chose to give birth early, however the baby could not be killed.

When you say that you find late-term abortion "disturbing" what exactly do you mean? Your feeling might be caused by calling a fetus a "completely viable baby" instead of a "viable fetus". Calling a fetus a baby has been the central ploy, and/or sloppy thinking, of the anti-abortion crowd since day one.

A number of years ago I was a witness to the birth of my son. The idea of someone killing a fully developed baby inside of a woman's womb a week, an hour, or 15 minutes before birth is disturbing to me. In fact, the thought makes me a bit sick. As explained above, I believe that there is a point prior to birth when the fetus is “viable” and therefore, becomes a baby.

By the way, I'd appreciate your not associating me with the religionists from the anti-abortion crowd. I’m not vulnerable to their ploys or their sloppy thinking.

[DavidOdden]

Given that this is a thread about "where the line is drawn", I vote in favor of drawing it at "viability". I define viability in this context as the point at which the fetus becomes a baby because it can be removed from the mother and would be expected to develop as a healthy individual.

I offer the following irritating consideration, disregarding the general rule of thumb about not mixing child's rights and abortion issues, because they are centrally related. The obligation of a parent to take care of their offspring arises in part from the fact that the mother has made a choice to bear a child. The obligation to take care of the infant cannot rightly be imposed on anyone else, nor can the infant take care of itself, so in lieu of a surrogate parent, either the mother must take care of the child, or the child must die. Assuming (quite an assumption, I grant) that you find the idea of abandoning an infant to the dumpster to be disturbing enough that it would be wrong, pregnancy can become an unshruggable future claim on your life at a certain point defined in part by technology. Imagine the Star Trek scenario where science has developed transporters: the embryo could be transported out of the womb and nurtured in vitro. Such technology would spell the end for abortions.

In the technologically closer future, the question "at what cost" has to be answered. A fetus can be removed by dangerous and expensive surgical means at various stages of development, and if you draw the line at the "possible", then you are saying that given the conflict between a fetuses supposed right to live and a mother's right to live (and to not have to sell her house to pay for the procedure), the law must come down in favor of the fetus as having superior rights. Hopefully you will also find that conclusion a bit disturbing.

[AisA]

I get the reasoning, but this also leads to a quandry with Siamese twins, that one twin has the right to kill and remove the other (either twin). This is predicated on the principle that in order to have rights, you must be a physically separate human. Would you conclude that Siamese twins have no rights (if not, why not)?

This is a tough question. But I think they do have rights, at least in some cases. A fetus is a biological parasite living on a physiology to which it has no right. Conjoined twins, by contrast, are living on a shared physiology to which they each have an equally valid claim. Does that negate their rights? I don't see why it would. Of course, their right to act is severely compromised by the fact that neither party could act unilaterally.

However, even if they do possess rights, I would say that any conjoined twin (or otherwise deformed person) that has zero chance of ever functioning as an adult, cannot claim the right to be supported by their parents indefinitely. If they can be surgically separated or if they are conjoined in a manner that permits them to function, then a case can be made that the parents should keep them alive until this can be done. But if there is no hope of them ever functioning as a man, I don't see why the parents should be penalized for this for the rest of their lives.

In the case where they share a heart and are not likely to live long without separation, I think it is the parent's call to decide which twin lives. I don't know how I would ever make such a call; it would be tough.

[gags]

In the technologically closer future, the question "at what cost" has to be answered. A fetus can be removed by dangerous and expensive surgical means at various stages of development, and if you draw the line at the "possible", then you are saying that given the conflict between a fetuses supposed right to live and a mother's right to live (and to not have to sell her house to pay for the procedure), the law must come down in favor of the fetus as having superior rights. Hopefully you will also find that conclusion a bit disturbing.

I was thinking more in terms of "drawing the line" at a point where the kid didn't have to be hooked up to multi-million dollar machines for months at a time. That way, an unwanted child could then be put up for adoption.

[Qwertz]

I was thinking more in terms of "drawing the line" at a point where the kid didn't have to be hooked up to multi-million dollar machines for months at a time. That way, an unwanted child could then be put up for adoption.

Who pays, and why?

-Q

[gags]

Who pays for what?

[Qwertz]

I was thinking more in terms of "drawing the line" at a point where the kid didn't have to be hooked up to multi-million dollar machines for months at a time. That way, an unwanted child could then be put up for adoption.

Emphasis mine.

-Q

[B. Royce]

I was thinking more in terms of "drawing the line" at a point where the kid didn't have to be hooked up to multi-million dollar machines for months at a time. That way, an unwanted child could then be put up for adoption.

Here, again, is sloppy thinking. A fetus is not a "kid" or a "child", wanted or unwanted.

Viability does not change a fetus into a baby. A fetus does not have the right to be taken out of a woman's womb. If it did have such a right, it could only be exercised, not by itself, but by a doctor, which would mean that a doctor would have the right to violate the rights of the woman. He would not be using retaliatory force, he would be initiating it (this is excluding instances involving her request, of course). If a woman is told that her fetus can mature only in an artificial womb, no one has the right to force her onto an operating table. The woman is an individual (independent, apart, separate) human being. Her (belonging to her, owned by her) fetus is not. It is not society's or the world's, or even her husband's, fetus. It is hers alone. She alone has the right to decide what to do with it. Anything else is the unholy, primitive, sacrifice of the individual.

[DavidOdden]

I was thinking more in terms of "drawing the line" at a point where the kid didn't have to be hooked up to multi-million dollar machines for months at a time. That way, an unwanted child could then be put up for adoption.

When you draw lines, it's important to make those lines as bright as possible, because ultimately you're saying that force may rightly be used to get a person to do what you say is right. First the adoption question. I haven't heard any objections to adoption, nor have I heard an argument for focring someone to adopt. One bottom line question is, if nobody wants to adopt the infant (once it's out of the womb), who will you force to take care of the infant? If not some unwilling third party, what gives the government the right to force a woman to provide a means of survival for the child until it reaches the stage where it can take care of itself? This comes down to the question why the possibility of later adoption gives the government the right to force a woman to give birth.

Second, what is it about the nature of the supposed fetal right compared to the rights of the mother, that leads to a particular decision, pro-fetus vs. pro-mother? Suppose, for example, that a fetus can be removed and put on a 50 thousand dollar machine for a month -- is that little enough burden on the mother than the fetus wins in court? (Yes, this is a slippery slope argument). If the fetus has no rights, then these issues are moot, because the law would have nothing to say about a woman's individual choice. It's only when there is an apparent conflict in rights that the law has to get involved. While I share your viceral reaction to the idea of drilling into the skull of a fetus just before it is born, I also have a similar viceral reaction to eating dog soup, but I won't make my preferences a matter of law.