The ethics of poisoning my cat and the abortion dilemma

[dream_weaver]

@Leonid ***

The fact that she states that: "One may argue about the later stages of pregnancy . . ." gives rise to the question in my mind at least: One may argue about what in the later stages of pregnancy? And what is the essential issue here? The emotionally charged anti-abortion stance predicated on the false grasp of what to apply rights to, or what she immediately follows up with: equating the potential to the actual and sacrificing the latter to the former?

*** edited to add.

Edited May 14, 2012 by dream_weaver

[Marc K.]

Leonid:

Please read Ayn Rand:

"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?"

“Of Living Death”

The Voice of Reason, 58–59

And to complete the passage you quoted:

"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. To equate apotential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . .. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings."

Quoting Ayn Rand out of context is the height of fallaciousness -- a tactic usually employed by her detractors. If you can't figure out what her position was by reading the above, then you aren't trying hard enough. She maintained that a woman had the absolute right to an abortion.

Elsewhere in the Lexicon she says her position was essentially the same as the Supreme Court's -- so you can read that for guidance. Essentially it says abortions should be allowed in the first two trimesters without limit and that the third trimester presents some questions and difficulties but that with a doctor's ok those should be allowed also, especially to safeguard the life of the woman.

Saying that "one may argue about something ..." doesn't imply what you think it does and typically puts the person saying it on the opposite side of the argument than what you are inferring.

Also, when she says that the "essential issue concerns only the first three months" she is addressing those who want to outlaw abortion. They like to point to late term abortions but really want to outlaw ALL abortions. So the issue then can easily be decided by determining whether a lump of protoplasm is a person that has rights: it isn't and it doesn't. It also addresses the fact that over 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester and 99% occur in first two trimesters.

There is quite a long thread on abortion if you wish to argue further but please don't misconstrue Miss Rand's position, it is absolutely clear.

[softwareNerd]

The primary source for Rand's view on abortion is her article "Of Living Death" (from The Objectivist, 1968; reproduced in the collection titled "The Voice of Reason"). If Rand thought abortion was moral up to a certain point before birth, and then immoral from that point until birth, she would surely have said so in this essay. It is not plausible to think that she would have only revealed the notion obliquely in an article about voting for Reagan. The essential view that Rand was fighting against was the Christian view that legally-protected human life is created at fertilization. If her essential view was that legally-protected human life started at the 13th week, is it plausible that she would not make it amply clear in her primary essay on the topic?

In the article you quoted, she is explaining a political choice: why she would not vote for Reagan. Even here, she refers people to her "Of Living Death" article. She also referred people to that article after a brief answer to a question at Ford Hall Forum in 1971 and again in 1976 [see, "Ayn Rand Answers].

The essential issue in the abortion debate in the U.S. is all about fertilization (sometime, rarely, it is about implantation). In the U.S., almost all abortions (91%) happen in the first trimester, a small percentage (9%) in the second and almost none in the third. People like Reagan and every viable Republican candidate base their arguments solely on the mystical notion of life coming into the fetus sometime near the point of fertilization. Their argument is not about viability, because they do not believe viability is the key moral issue. The essence of their argument is that a clump of cells is a legally-protected human being. That's the essential political issue.

During an answer to a question at Ford Hall Forum (1971), Rand said that medically "you" could argue that an embryo is alive at six to eight months. Extempore answers must be treated with care, and may not always reflect the speakers accurate view without the benefit of editing. Still, with that caveat, notice a few things about this answer: firstly, she is talking about the third trimester rather than the second; secondly, once again, she does not claim this to be her view, but is saying that "you" could argue. However, here is the clincher: in the span of that very same answer she said that life starts at birth.

My initial reaction to your post was mainly because you framed it as if Objectivism holds that abortion is immoral after 12 weeks. Clearly this is not the case. Now, you could argue that Rand was against restrictions on abortion, but appeared to show some flexibility after the first trimester. However, it is unlikely that she actually was flexible about it, since she also stated that life begins at birth during an answer where she spoke about "six to eight months". The fact that she stated the trimester "exception" in the third person both times -- "one may say" and "you may say" -- further reinforces the evidence that this was not her view.

So, in your opinion, what is the meaning of this statement? Clearly, while discussing abortion, Ayn Rand considered essential to this issue only the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Rand was extremely vehement about people who wanted to ban abortion. She actually called them "bitches" (Ford Hall Forum, 1974). However, the view that actually riled her up is the notion that a clump of protoplasm should be given rights. She was obviously aware of views on viability -- views which would say that abortions were okay only during the first trimester, or only during the first and second. I doubt she thought such people were irrational, vicious "bitches". My reading of this is that, to Rand, the standard religious/GOP view is so obviously ridiculous and vicious that it deserved a strong, emotional assault, and even the label "bitches". However, the view on viability was a different issue, and one where she could at least see where people would have a non-mystical, non-vicious argument.

However, just because viability is a different issue does not imply that one agrees with it. I see Rand attacking the mystical view, and clarifying -- as an aside -- that the viability view was a different issue. I do not see her agreeing with the viability view.

My personal view is similar to Rand: I think the life-at-fertilization view is completely irrational, but I can see how someone rational may argue that a viability is the right point. I disagree vehemently with making viability the line, but I can at see that it is a radially different argument from the fertilization viewpoint. However, the reason I responded to your post was not because of the view, but because you were ascribing it to Objectivism.

If someone wants to argue that Rand might have supported viability, I think that's wrong and lacking in evidence. However, stating that Objectivism does support a viability argument is blatantly false.

[Nicky]

No, untrue.

Yes, true.

[whYNOT]

Yes, true.

You have anything to support that?

From "The Objectivist Ethics" (VoS):

Man's life, (Man qua Man) Rand says, is the standard.

"The standard" , an abstract principle, representing "That which is required

for the survival of man qua man."

As distinct from an individual who's own life is the ethical PURPOSE.

("The purpose of living a life proper to a rational being".)

Crucial distinctions: 'Man', and one man - standard, and purpose.

Edited May 15, 2012 by whYNOT

[Nicky]

Crucial distinctions: 'Man', and one man - standard, and purpose.

No, it's not a crucial distinction. You're playing wordgames. Poorly.

[whYNOT]

No, it's not a crucial distinction. You're playing wordgames. Poorly.

Nothing but direct quotations from VoS, with little interpretation from me.

It's about time you show your sources and reasoning to put me right - or carefully

read (re-read?) "Objectivist Ethics".

In the meantime, you're talking to an Objectivist here. I can be wrong or right,

but I don't 'do' devious word-games just to win a point.

[Leonid]

This is not a question of viability. Rand explicitly considered only the first 12 weeks of gestation as an essential issue in regard to abortion. However a fetus is still not viable in the much later stages. Why she didn't want to discuss the late abortion is not clear-she herself never explained this. What is clear-she made this distinction not for the political but philosophical reasons. You forget that abortion involves both woman and fetus. Therefore abortion is not a choice between good and bad, but choice between bad and worse. It is a messy, bloody and painful procedure which could be dangerous to the woman even if performed within the first 12 weeks of gestation, let alone in the later stages. It's a last resort and today, with the plethora of the contraceptives, no woman should even have to make such a choice. Abortion is a moral right, but should be executed with the great precaution and only when there is no other choice exists.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Leonid

[Leonid]

Furthermore in the end of the second and during the third trimester a fetus becomes viable , that is-able to exist separately from the mother's body. Therefore abortion becomes an induced delivery and delivered fetus a premature newborn infant. Destruction of such a fetus is simply a murder and by no means could be justified in Objectivism.

[softwareNerd]

Rand explicitly considered only the first 12 weeks of gestation as an essential issue in regard to abortion....What is clear-she made this distinction not for the political but philosophical reasons.

You're simply repeating your blatant misrepresentation of Rand's view.

Almost everything else you said about abortion is also false, but I have no interest in discussion abortion.

My only interest here was to prove that you have blatantly misrepresented Rand's view.

[Leonid]

You're simply repeating your blatant misrepresentation of Rand's view.

Almost everything else you said about abortion is also false, but I have no interest in discussion abortion.

My only interest here was to prove that you have blatantly misrepresented Rand's view.

This is a very strange statement considering Rand's explicit position. No matter what you say, she referred only to the first 12 weeks of gestation as an essential period in regard to abortion . She never endorsed or even discussed late abortion of the viable fetus which is indistinguishable from murder.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Leonid

[Marc K.]

This is a very strange statement considering Rand's explicit position.

Yes, your statements are very strange given Miss Rand's explicit position.

Ayn Rand said: "A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."

and yet you maintain that:

She never endorsed or even discussed late abortion of the viable fetus which is indistinguishable from murder.

These two positions are irreconcilable. You cannot murder that which has no rights.

As to the idea that "essential" means "only" or "to the exclusion of": it is absurd. Accordingly, you must believe that man has no eyes, no thumbs, no hair and consists only of his rational mind since that is his essential defining characteristic. Again, absurd.

[Leonid]

Yes, your statements are very strange given Miss Rand's explicit position.

Ayn Rand said: "A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."

and yet you maintain that:

These two positions are irreconcilable. You cannot murder that which has no rights.

As to the idea that "essential" means "only" or "to the exclusion of": it is absurd. Accordingly, you must believe that man has no eyes, no thumbs, no hair and consists only of his rational mind since that is his essential defining characteristic. Again, absurd.

To be born means to be able of existence independently of the mother's body. Abortion in fact is induced delivery. If delivered fetus is alive, then he's in fact a premature newborn infant and has right to live. Today every newborn infant at gestational age of 28 weeks has a fair chance to live outside of mother's body. Therefore abortion at this age is immoral. If such a fetus deliberately destroyed prior to delivery-and this is a technique of the late abortion-then this is a murder. Cannot see how Objectivism can justify this, not even to mention what such a procedure could do to the woman involved.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Leonid

[Marc K.]

Today every newborn infant at gestational age of 28 weeks has a fair chance to live outside of mother's body. Therefore abortion at this age is immoral.

Besides the fact that this isn't true, you've changed your branding of the woman as "immoral" from 12 weeks to 28 weeks, I suppose that's some improvement ... but not much. I can see your position is well thought out.

So if a woman wants an abortion after 28 weeks, then you are for either forcing her to be a human incubator or forced surgery? I mean you call it immoral but you go much further than that. Since you are calling it murder, that means you would outlaw all abortions after 28 weeks.

Typically, the only abortions performed in the third trimester are to protect the life of the mother. You want to ignore her right to life. You think there is such a thing as Rights being in conflict? Let me inform you, there isn't such a thing. In fact that proposition destroys the very concept of Rights. So now that you've got us living in a dictatorship, what else do you want to force me to do?

[softwareNerd]

Lot's of discussion on abortion in this thread here.

[Leonid]

A lot of misunderstanding . The abortion is always mother's right-no matter what stage of pregnancy or purpose of it. The question is not rights but morality of such an action. To act by right doesn't always mean to act morally. The conflict therefore is not between rights, but between right and morality. "Typically, the only abortions performed in the third trimester are to protect the life of the mother"-typically -yes. and such an abortion doesn't represent any problem.To perform the late abortion in order to safe mother's life is rightful and moral-her life takes a preference over the life of the fetus since unborn fetus is not alive in the full sense of the word. But to perform such an abortion for sake, say, of cosmetic reasons, or because woman found a new boyfriend would be rightful but deeply immoral. That would be a murder not in the legal but in the moral sense. And for the Rand statement " "A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."-this is true. Moreover, since rights are " is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.", the new born child has a long way before he can freely act in the social context. Therefore even after birth a newborn infant doesn't have any rights. He doesn't need to act in order to survive-everything is given to him. Nevertheless the infanticide is immoral and illegal. BTW, this is the reason why the cruelty against animals which have no rights whatsoever, is also a punishable crime- it is deeply immoral.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Leonid

[softwareNerd]

Therefore even after birth a newborn infant doesn't have any rights.

Just as an FYI, this too is not Rand's position.

[Leonid]

Just as an FYI, this too is not Rand's position.

And what is Rand's position? Rand never discussed the question of late abortion or rights of the newborn infant. Rand also never referred to the problem of rights versus morality. However one should be able to infer proper conclusions in regard to these and many other problems which Rand never discussed by using the whole context of the Objectivist knowledge. Or consider, for example the problem of actual versus potential. Rand mentioned in regard to the problem of abortion that actual is more valuable than potential. But is this always true? Obviously not. In Objectivism the basic moral question is " value for whom and for what?" In many instances man exchanges the actual value to the potential value not as a sacrifice but because he hopes to obtain gain-like in case of investment, for example, and in many other cases.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Leonid

[Nicky]

Rand mentioned in regard to the problem of abortion that actual is more valuable than potential.

She did? Where?

[Nicky]

And what is Rand's position?

Her position is that a newborn infant does have rights.

[Leonid]

She did? Where?

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

“The Age of Mediocrity”

The Objectivist Forum, June 1981, 3

[Leonid]

Her position is that a newborn infant does have rights.

She never claimed that. What she claimed is that "a human being’s life begins at birth.". It doesn't mean that a newborn child possesses rights.

[dream_weaver]

You might consider what she wrote in

The Letters of Ayn Rand

The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged Years (1945-1959)

Individual rights are an absolute, not to be "balanced" or limited by anybody. (And don't answer me that an individual's right to murder, for instance, is limited. Such a right never existed in the first place.) It certainly is not the government nor society that "sets up rights for an individual or group." These rights are not "set up" (nor "rigged up" nor "framed up"). They are inherent in the nature of man. Man is endowed with them by the fact of his birth.

[softwareNerd]

She never claimed that. What she claimed is that "a human being’s life begins at birth.". It doesn't mean that a newborn child possesses rights.

So, are you saying that Rand thought abortion was immoral at 12 weeks, but that parents should be allowed -- legally -- to abort their fetus and kill their children? According to your interpretation, did Rand also imply that parent can legally kill their teenagers, or did she draw some line?

[intellectualammo]

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

“The Age of Mediocrity”

The Objectivist Forum, June 1981, 3

Correct, AT BIRTH.

When is birth then?

I'd argure, it's the moment when the cord is clamped and cut. Only then does the fetus (biological parasite) becomes fully independent of the pregnant woman (host) and becomes a child, and then has rights.

Edited May 24, 2012 by intellectualammo