Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Abortion

Rate this topic


semm

Recommended Posts

RationalCop, you wrote: "And you still haven't proven that the purpose, or even the main purpose, of sex is procreation, you simply make the assertion."

Durandal, you wrote: " Sex, per se, does not intrinsically possess a purpose, much like an inanimate object is incapable of being good or bad."

I don't know if I can carry on any kind of meaningful conversation when even obvious interpretations of observed behavior is denied. What you are saying is sophistry at best (attacking a highly specific interpretation of words), irrational at worst. Are there other bodily functions that have you similarly stumped? The purpose of defecation is to rid the body of wastes---would you agree with that? Or do I have to "prove" this in order for you discuss it? The purpose of chewing is mainly to render large chunks of food into smaller ones so that they can be swallowed without choking. And the main purpose of sex in organisms is reproduction---this is so obvious that any reasonable man can see this without having recourse to scientific data. It is so accepted as common wisdom that reproduction figures in the dictionary definition of sex. It seems to me that if you are going to challenge such a commonly held, common sense assertion, you will have to give me good reasons for that challenge. If your defense consists of denying such common-sense assertions that the purpose of the procreative act is procreation, you must sense that your argument is flawed. You're aligning yourself with primitive tribes who think that babies come from bathing in the river.

Dominique,

You wrote: "Do you hold that Sex=Baby and that if a woman is "irresponsible" enough to engage in sex when she does not want to have a baby then she ought to be made to suffer the consequences of carrying a pregnancy to term no matter the personal sacrifice it would be to her, no matter the effect on her body, on her career, and her future?

If so why?

If not, can you see the contradiction in your position?

No, I don't hold that sex ALWAYS equals baby---ask any woman who has difficulty conceiving. But I do say that the main purpose of sex is procreative.

I am against abortion as a means of birth control. I would not oppose it as an option in the case of rape and physical life of the mother (the usual exceptions), though I am still maintaining that, in those cases, a human life is still being taken. In the case of rape, I would hope the mother would carry to term (why take the life of the child for the crime of the father?), but since she did not freely engage in the activity that produces babies, I am at least sympathetic to her plight. If the physical life of the mother is threatened, then it is the unfortunate and difficult situation of weighing the two lives and having to choose one, so again I am sympathetic. But those are a very small percentage of the abortions performed: over ninety percent of all abortions are simply after-the-fact birth control. Human life should not be treated so cheaply. No amount of rationalization justifies the casual taking of human life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adoption is at the sole discretion of the parents: this meaning that they can choose to adopt or not adopt.  Screening/lack of screening is immaterial to their right to make this choice.
I agree with this at first blush. However:

1)What if, for instance, women started having babies and selling them to the highest bidder. Doesn't there need to be some objective arbitrator in the process of transferring guardianship?

2)What if someone decided to buy a bunch of children and make them work?

3)What keeps this person from adopting, especially if the mother is fully consenting because he is paying her nicely?

3)Is he entitled to do so as long as he doesn't physically harm the children? Or are there more specific guidelines about initiation of force against children?

4)What also comes into my mind is of course abuse. Then I imagine that the government would interfere on the child's behalf (as they do now) and would take responsibility for the placement of the child with a legal guardian (as they do now).

Is that agreed?

If so, then my issue as to the rights of guardianship-is whether there are objective standards which would be made into law as to what rights of the child the guardian could not infringe upon. Would they stay very similar to laws now? Would there be a need for a government child protection Agency?

Also, what rights does the guardian have as far as selling their children to the highest bidder at any time they please?

Essentially, I want to know the phases of the "right to life" from childhood through adulthood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(...)

I am against abortion as a means of birth control. I would not oppose it as an option in the case of rape and physical life of the mother (the usual exceptions), though I am still maintaining that, in those cases,  a human life is still being taken.

(...)

So, to you, rights are relative. If a woman chooses to have sex, then she cannot have an abortion; but, if she is forced to have sex, then she can have an abortion. For the same reason, then, the fetus of the first case does have a right to life, and the other one does not. Is there any rational explanation for this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if I can carry on any kind of meaningful conversation when even obvious interpretations of observed behavior is denied....

I counted six logical fallacies in that paragraph including but not limited to appeal to authority, appeal to common belief, argument from intimidation, and false analogy. There was not one single argument for Sherlock's position.

I am against abortion as a means of birth control. [snip]

This and the rest of the paragraph it is in is exactly what I asked Sherlock NOT to do: making deductions from the ideas we disagree on. As I said this is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE and will throw this thread into tangents. I ask that the moderators make an official request that Sherlock not engage in this behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1)What if, for instance, women started having babies and selling them to the highest bidder. Doesn't there need to be some objective arbitrator in the process of transferring guardianship?

2)What if someone decided to buy a bunch of children and make them work?

3)What keeps this person from adopting, especially if the mother is fully consenting because he is paying her nicely?

3)Is he entitled to do so as long as he doesn't physically harm the children? Or are there more specific guidelines about initiation of force against children?

This would be slavery, not the assumption of a parent/guardian position, and as such is dealt with under other moral guidelines. "Making" children work implies the use of force, if not force-in-fact, then at least force-in-threat. "Buying" and "selling" children is not inherently immoral activity: if a woman decides to rent the use of her womb (be a host mother) for economic advantage, that is her decision.

4)What also comes into my mind is of course abuse. Then I imagine that the government would interfere on the child's behalf (as they do now) and would take responsibility for the placement of the child with a legal guardian (as they do now).

Is that agreed?

I'm going to disagree here. Abuse, of children or of anyone, constitutes the use of force and is also dealt with elsewhere. However the existence of a "child protection agency" is a leftover of a welfare-state "entitlement" mentality. It is the government's duty to see to it that the force is removed (by removing the child if necessary) but it is NOT the government's responsibility to see to it that the child is then provided with a guardian possessing specific qualities. Government action should be restricted to negating negatives, not to gaining positives, as those positives always come at someone's expense.

These issues are highly specific and probably should require their own thread at this point, as we've moved away from the Abortion question.

Essentially, I want to know the phases of the "right to life" from childhood through adulthood.

To me the answer here is very cut-and-dried. Once a child is born (becoming a separate entity) it has a right to life, which implies the other rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These two secondary rights may sometimes be abrogated by the parents/guardians of the child in order to maintain the child's life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruno,

You wrote: "So, to you, rights are relative. If a woman chooses to have sex, then she cannot have an abortion; but, if she is forced to have sex, then she can have an abortion."

I am not saying that in one situation, life exists and in the other situation it doesn't: life exists whether you think it does or not. I am simply bowing to political reality: a law that banned abortions will never be passed unless it makes exceptions for the two situations I mentioned. However, a law that bans abortion for the purpose of birth control has a chance of passing (though not anytime soon). Therefore, I would see it as progress if ninety-plus percent of abortions were banned. Hence my comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, to you, rights are relative. If a woman chooses to have sex, then she cannot have an abortion; but, if she is forced to have sex, then she can have an abortion. For the same reason, then, the fetus of the first case does have a right to life, and the other one does not. Is there any rational explanation for this?

Bruno, I think it would be more accurate to say she views rights as conditional. And no, there is no justification for this distinction. If a fetus is a human being and possess rights, nothing justifies punishing the fetus that results from a rape, an act it obviously had no part in and can not be blamed for.

No amount of rationalization justifies the casual taking of human life.
Really, Sherlock, you are wasting your time with this sort of straw man argument. No one here advocates the "taking of human life", the debate is over what constitutes human life, and you are too smart not to know it.

So either offer proof that a fetus has rights (see my first post in this thread) -- valid proof and not argument from authority -- or admit that your position is unsupported and unsupportable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would be slavery, not the assumption of a parent/guardian position, and as such is dealt with under other moral guidelines.  "Making" children work implies the use of force, if not force-in-fact, then at least force-in-threat.  "Buying" and "selling" children is not inherently immoral activity: if a woman decides to rent the use of her womb (be a host mother) for economic advantage, that is her decision.

It is the government's duty to see to it that the force is removed (by removing the child if necessary) but it is NOT the government's responsibility to see to it that the child is then provided with a guardian possessing specific qualities.  Government action should be restricted to negating negatives, not to gaining positives, as those positives always come at someone's expense. 

Ok, thank you. Most of that was all cleared up rather easy. I was just wondering what the basic positions were. I agree with what you said to the letter, I guess it is just hard to get my mind around some of the details. I also haven't discussed or read much regarding the details I asked you, so my initial impressions were just that, and I'm thankful to you for clarifying :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I counted six logical fallacies in that paragraph including but not limited to appeal to authority, appeal to common belief, argument from intimidation, and false analogy.
I was going to reply to her post with the fallacies pointed out one at a time, but got bored and ditched the idea :D

I don't know if I can carry on any kind of meaningful conversation

I'm pretty convinced that you can't.

I ask that the moderators make an official request that Sherlock not engage in this behavior.

I believe they already have.

How about if we move the discussion to another focus, and not allow the tangents by not acknowledging the obviously arbitrary?

I think it is clear that the issue of rights for the unborn is clearly in violation of the "right to life" concept and so cannot exist.

Is there any instance where anyone sees a contradiction between this application of the "right to life" and other circumstances?

Could biology ever change anyone's mind about the "right to life" and when it begins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>Sherlock stated: And the main purpose of sex in organisms is reproduction---this is so obvious that any reasonable man can see this without having recourse to scientific data. It is so accepted as common wisdom that reproduction figures in the dictionary definition of sex.

If the context is the continuation of the species, homo sapiens, then, yes, the "purpose" of sex is reproduction.

If the context is man as a rational animal who chooses his actions, then the "purpose" of sex depends upon the individual. One man may choose to engage in sex for reproductive purposes, while another may choose sex as the means to celebrate his love for a particular woman.

Dictionary definitions and common wisdom may have little to do with the context of a particular thread. If such things are the context of this thread, then the argument in the above quote is valid. If not, then the argument is not valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that abortion is wrong because it takes the life of an innocent human being." Sherlock

How can a 'human being' be innocent, if it hasn't the ability to be guilty of something? Only human beings with VOLITION have the ability to make choices and act upon them, and may be characterized as being 'guilty' or 'innocent'. A 'being' that never had the choice is neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JMeganSnow,

You wrote: "This is a specious argument. Rights pertain only to one class of objects: humans. Fat cells can no more have "rights" than rocks can. Argument by analogy isn't very useful."

You are correct: rights pertain only to one class of organisms: humans. We can agree there. My analogy was directed to the argument that regarded embryos as illegal squatters of some kind, when in fact they are the natural consequence of engaging in a particular activity, much as fat cells are the result of eating too much.

You wrote: "So-called "partial-birth" abortions are performed when the fetus is a danger to the mother's continued life and the head is too large to easily pass through the birth canal."

Not true. In fact, there are no medical conditions that require this procedure. (A C-section can take care of the situation you describe). The procedure, which is itself intrusive, is used solely to kill the baby and in fact is described by those who perform them as "elective"---meaning, it's NOT necessary. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps; the baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal; the abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head;

the abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull, and opens the scissors to enlarge the hole. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

None of this is medically necessary.

You wrote: "A human being is not a genetic code. If this were true, you could treat identical twins as interchangeable parts. "Oh, I killed one of the twins, but that's okay . . . his genetic code is still alive!" Bah."

I agree. I never said that a human was solely a genetic code, though it's genetic code is one very individual aspect of a human being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

meganfiala,

You wrote: "How can a 'human being' be innocent, if it hasn't the ability to be guilty of something? Only human beings with VOLITION have the ability to make choices and act upon them, and may be characterized as being 'guilty' or 'innocent'. A 'being' that never had the choice is neither."

I used the term "innocent" in order to make a contrast with the life of, say, a convicted killer on death row, or participants in a war (soldiers). An infant isn't capable of making choices, nor the mentally retarded, but I don't have a problem with describing them as "innocent". If that word bothers you, then feel free to overlook it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any instance where anyone sees a contradiction between this application of the "right to life" and other circumstances?

Could biology ever change anyone's mind about the "right to life" and when it begins?

I can't see any contradictions myself. If I did, I would have pointed them out.

I also don't think anything within the provenance of the science of biology could ever provide information contradicting this reasoning. Such information would have to be along the lines of demonstrating that a fetus is a rational being to an equal extent as a full-grown human AND that it somehow deserved to have its life maintained at the expense of another human. For various reasons I find this, well, silly.

There are certain theoretical situations to be advanced, such as the moral questions involved if humans were fully oviparous. Without evolution or massive genetic tinkering this question is immaterial, mere fantastic imaginings. However, there is the possibility of creating artificial "wombs" in which fertilized eggs could be incubated from the moment of inception.

The question there would still be the same, though; an artificial womb is not "free" it requires the investment and expenditure of someone's time, effort, and money. Does a fetus possess a right to someone's time, effort, and money if they are unwilling to provide it? No.

So I think this is fairly well resolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JMeganSnow, you wrote: "A potential human is not a human."

Durandal, you wrote: "They are potential human beings. Using your logic, one could argue that I am murdering dozens of potential humans every week by not impregnating every female I meet."

There is a problem with your logic: there are no "potential humans" anymore than there are potential apes. Actual apes are potential swimmers, and actual human beings are potential philosophers. The being is actual, the functioning is potential. One can't "murder" potential humans, only actual ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JMeganSnow,

You wrote: " Such information would have to be along the lines of demonstrating that a fetus is a rational being to an equal extent as a full-grown human AND that it somehow deserved to have its life maintained at the expense of another human. For various reasons I find this, well, silly."

By your reasoning, then, there is nothing to keep you from killing the severely retarded of any age who cannot reason and who are dependent upon others. Likewise with those in a coma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My analogy was directed to the argument that regarded embryos as illegal squatters of some kind, when in fact they are the natural consequence of engaging in a particular activity, much as fat cells are the result of eating too much.

The solution to this, of course, is not to argue from analogy. Analogies can serve as illustrations of points, but are not points in and of themselves.

Your arguments continue to be strings of assertions strung together with emotion-laden words and gruesome terminology. We have established the conditions you must meet in order to prove that abortion is immoral. Either satisfy them or go elsewhere.

As for arguing about medical "necessity" AGAIN you are arguing from appeal to authority. I work in a tissue bank with a ROOMFUL of doctors, would you like me to ask THEM whether there are procedures that may warrent a "partial-birth"

abortion?

Are you asserting that a C-Section is NOT intrusive?

There, I've gone and violated what I said I would do, but I feel justified as these statements were clearly addressed to me and it would be unfair to expect someone else to respond to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By your reasoning, then, there is nothing to keep you from killing the severely retarded of any age who cannot reason and who are dependent upon others. Likewise with those in a coma.

Did I somehow suggest that I was opposed to those ideas?

However: retardation so severe that the person is incapable of reason or rationality is extremely rare. I would say that someone so unfortunate is incapable of living in a human manner. I would even consider it cruel and inhumane to maintain a human alive in this state, as a PET. Rather would I be dead than brain-dead and still "alive".

A coma is a temporary condition under which rationality and consciousness are SUSPENDED. If it is evidently permanent I am fully in favor of removing life-support. It is difficult to make the distinction, though, so I would not dictate the when, how, and wherefor; that is for the family of the comatose to decide, and for them to provide the monetary support for the life-support. If they cannot, do they have a right to DEMAND support at the expense of the doctors? No.

I will say it before you do, as I have no desire to be the victim of further ridiculous claims: I AM cold and unfeeling. Exercising justice requires that emotions be put aside and only the FACTS considered. In terms of the law, justice is my only concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JMeganSnow,

You wrote: "Are you asserting that a C-Section is NOT intrusive?"

No, and your thinking that I did is an indication that you are quick to make assumptions---or you have difficulties in comprehension. C-sections ARE intrusive, but the intrusion is necessary for the ultimate physical well-being of mother and child. The intrusion of a partial-birth abortion, however, is neither necessitated by the physical well-being of the mother and instead has as it's main purpose the killing of the child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JMeganSnow,

You wrote: "A coma is a temporary condition under which rationality and consciousness are SUSPENDED."

And lack of rationality and consciousness in a fetus is also a temporary condition---if it isn't killed, that is. Measurable brain waves and heart beats occur at a very young age---just a matter of weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sherlock,

If you're game, I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the purpose of sex. The concept of "purpose" implies a conscious element being involved in an action. Christians say the purpose of sex is reproduction, because they believe God created things this way (i.e., his purpose was for sex to cause reproduction).

But if you don't believe in God, how can you say sex has any purpose? Only human beings have "purpose". Some human beings' purpose in having sex is to procreate; but that is not the purpose of the vast majority, and certainly not most of the time (especially amongst Objectivists). The proper way to express the relationship between sex and reproduction would be one of cause and effect: "Sex is the cause of reproduction (the effect)". I think the same criticism applies to the rest of your examples.

Are there other bodily functions that have you similarly stumped? The purpose of defecation is to rid the body of wastes---would you agree with that? Or do I have to "prove" this in order for you discuss it? The purpose of chewing is mainly to render large chunks of food into smaller ones so that they can be swallowed without choking. And the main purpose of sex in organisms is reproduction---this is so obvious that any reasonable man can see this without having recourse to scientific data.

Defecation, chewing and all other bodily functions have no "purpose"; to use that word apart from any reference to a human being's deliberate intent, is intrinsicism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a problem with your logic: there are no "potential humans" anymore than there are potential apes. Actual apes are potential swimmers, and actual human beings are potential philosophers. The being is actual, the functioning is potential. One can't "murder" potential humans, only actual ones.

Actual fetuses are potential humans. But you correct on the murder part. You can't murder potential humans, no more than you can commit regicide against someone who is not a member of royalty.

As far as this thread goes, Sherlock, what are you trying to accomplish? Nobody is going to change their mind. It appears that it is just you arguing against everyone else. In the context of Objectivism, abortion is a non-issue. By banning abortion you are violating a woman's right to life. End of discussion.

I'll see you this far though, abortion is disgusting. It is a horrible thing to think about and a situation that I never plan on having to deal with in my life. With the exception of very extreme cases, it doesn't make a lot of sense why anybody would put themselves in a position where they are forced to make a decision about it. It leads back to personal responsibility, or the lack thereof. But this does not put the ghastly decision about an abortion in the hands of the government or any other individual besides the potential mother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan wrote:

I'll see you this far though, abortion is disgusting. It is a horrible thing to think about and a situation that I never plan on having to deal with in my life. With the exception of very extreme cases, it doesn't make a lot of sense why anybody would put themselves in a position where they are forced to make a decision about it. It leads back to personal responsibility, or the lack thereof.

I strongly disagree with the points made here.

  • I don't think abortion is disgusting - at least, no more disgusting than any other surgical procedure. What's so horrible about it?
  • As for why people would put themselves in that "position", there are many valid instances where the woman isn't responsible. Birth control is not 100% - sometimes it doesn't work. That is a perfectly good reason to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Or how about birth defects - yes they are uncommon, but if a parent knows about them prior to birth, there is nothing wrong with terminating the pregnancy then either.

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...