Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
 thenelli01

Late Term Abortion

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

There is a brief review of varying opinions throughout history. Given the final decision, I think the Court basically sided with the view that life begins at birth...

"Basically" the Court expressed an interest in "viability," as well, and drawing distinctions between the trimesters. Just as Rand did, when she spoke about the essential issue concerning only the first three months, and that one may argue about the later stages. Since those thoughts seem to mirror the Court's decision in those aspects as well, maybe her agreement runs that far?

I don't know. I don't know Rand's thinking on the subject beyond what she's written, which is confused to say the least, but I do know that it is not some endorsement of "full-term abortion." Because as I've said, if she had wanted to make such a claim, it would have been easy to do so unambiguously. But "one may argue about the later stages" implies the very opposite, that there is something about the entity -- "embryo," fetus, child, or by any other name -- that changes over the course of the pregnancy and (at least) invites the very argument that this changing and developing entity may be subject to rights, at some point before birth.

Look, if I wanted to take up the side some people wish to impart to Rand, it's easy enough to do so in a straightforward manner. Watch:

"The unborn have no rights until birth. A mother may terminate her pregnancy at any time without exception. Roe v. Wade was a good start, but it does not go far enough. There is no debate to be had about the 'later stages' of pregnancy, and it does not matter whether an 'embryo' at eight months is alive medically or not," and so forth.

If Rand wished to say these things, she could have done at least as well as I have managed, and then I could say, "Well, I agree with Rand about most things... but I don't agree completely with her position on abortion." Yet as it stands, I agree with Rand that the issue essentially concerns the early stage of a pregnancy -- and that abortion there is fine (let alone birth control) -- and that one may argue about the later stages (which I do). Thus, I am not "anti-abortion," as you have put it elsewhere (I am as pro-abortion as Rand and Roe v. Wade), but anti-infanticide.

31 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

We agree that a mother (and father) is responsible for her newborn's life. The state entrusts the parents with this natural responsibility. And so I'm fine with them being legally accountable for the baby's proper care. We can certainly put that topic to bed and move on.

I agree that the basic issue concerns the nature of the fetus, if you include its actions in that conception of nature. The entity is not merely a thing, but also a growing, moving thing. Its internal and external actions are also part of its total nature.

Certainly. And that entity, at full-term, is growing and moving, with internal and external actions consistent with the newborn to which we would ascribe rights (and the parents, parental obligation); only its relationship with its surroundings (and significantly, the mother) changes at birth. Yet the entity is not defined by those relationships. I mean, you could also make an argument that the newborn is fundamentally a different entity when in the bathtub or bassinet -- nothing stops you, outside of reason -- but it would be just as wrong.

31 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Another clarification: Rand used the term "embryo" not only for the early-stage entity, but also for late-stage ones. A couple posts ago I quoted her using that word to describe a fetus up to eight months old, as well as "an unborn entity." Yes, she sometimes discounts the early-stage embryo as something like "a piece of tissue." But she also discounts the late-stage "embryo" as not having rights. Again, I accept that she expressed mixed messages on this point, particularly in her open Q&A sessions.

One of my attractions to Rand, generally speaking, is that she is an inordinately precise writer and speaker. I thus find her sometimes misuse of "embryo" both striking and suggestive, and what it suggests to me is that, perhaps, part of the confusion is that Rand continued to deal with the subject as she saw it "essentially": meaning that she sometimes misused the word "embryo" because when she thought about abortion, she thought of it primarily in terms of pregnancy to three months (like she indicated elsewhere), where the word "embryo" is (at least mostly) appropriate.

You'd quoted her, after all, also speaking about "birth control" and thus (as I imagine it), contra the argument that sperm or a fertilized egg are also human life, and subject to protection, etc., which is ridiculous, but an argument that some people make. Rand rejected the idea that such an entity -- a "piece of protoplasm" -- could be considered "human life" in the full sense, with which I agree. But she also seemed to allow (without committing one way or the other) that later stages of pregnancy might be different, with which I further agree.

And beyond that, did she give "full-term abortion" much thought? I doubt it. I also don't know how much thought Rand gave to parenthood/parental obligation, generally, which is an under-explored topic that might shed some light on the present debate. I know you consider it "put to bed," but I believe that it's meaningful as an antidote to the rhetoric you'd introduced, regarding "the right not to be regarded as the means to any end."

So where does that "right" go, given the obligations of parenthood? Instead of coming up with yet more angles, why not play out one or two of the several already introduced? A woman has the right not to be regarded as the means of any end, we agree, and yet we do both also ascribe a mother obligations to her newborn. How do we reconcile that? And if a mother could have an obligation to her newborn+1 day, why could she not have an obligation to her newborn-1 day? Because that entity is magically transformed at birth, from an unperson to a human being? That sounds not alone like rationalism, but shamanism.

31 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

And we do treat them differently. But you claim that an unborn child is a human being with a right to life, and I don't see evidence for that.

I do claim that an unborn child, at thirty nine weeks, say, is a human being, yes. If I claim that it has a right to life, that's because I believe that human beings have a right to life, generally.

I think that the "argument" (for which you claim to give "philosophical and biological evidence" where I find nothing but mere assertion) that a child one minute prior to delivery is not a human being, is preposterous. Earlier you'd related this to "connection" -- and maybe that's the "evidence" you're referring to -- but such a thing is utterly irrelevant. I'd proposed a (only somewhat) futuristic test tube baby example to demonstrate this irrelevancy, but I'm not certain you've weighed in on it.

So what do you say? Given an (actual) embryo, a true "piece of protoplasm," being brought to term via test tube, do we agree that initially it is not a human being, and subject to termination, but at some point thereafter, it is a human being and cannot be terminated/aborted, and must instead be cared for?

31 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

I'm glad you agree that a human being is what it is. But until you provide your own definition, I think we're at a standstill. You could play the "one minute before" card all the way back to conception. It still wouldn't clarify your idea of what is a human being, nor a human being with a right to life.

Rand wrote, "[The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: 'A rational animal.'

('Rational,' in this context, does not mean 'acting invariably in accordance with reason'; it means 'possessing the faculty of reason.'...) "

And so, I would go "one minute before," not till conception, but until that point where the entity in question possesses the faculty of reason -- which I think is ultimately a question to be settled by science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

And so, I would go "one minute before," not till conception, but until that point where the entity in question possesses the faculty of reason -- which I think is ultimately a question to be settled by science.

That's the differentia. What about the genus: animal? When is it an animal?

I'll get to other points later, when I have more time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

That's the differentia. What about the genus: animal? When is it an animal?

I'll get to other points later, when I have more time.

This is games playing and demonstrative of the "rationalism" I'd noted earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Things have changed dramatically. Medical science knows far more about the fetus than then, and has achieved great strides in an infant's ex-utero life support - and - safe, 'full-term abortion'. Nature has been "commanded" by science, nature is no longer the arbiter of safe abortion - so her "nature is consistent with the interests of both" - seems rather quaint today. (From a comfortable "presentist" position)

These 'man-made' breakthroughs afford women greater freedom, which the truism has it, comes with greater (moral) responsibility. Given today's predominant  unreason and moralities, I'm dubious many are sufficiently "in their right minds" to do so.  

The fact that things have changed and made it safer makes it even more likely that Ran would agree with full-term abortions. Also, the simple fact that she said -- albeit off the cuff -- that the line is drawn at birth. 

I'm always a little wary of arguments that go "this is what Rand would have thought"... because its basically speculation and -- much more importantly -- it does not matter a great deal to whether the conclusion is right or wrong. So, it almost always becomes two sides contesting what is ultimately an appeal to authority. So, both sides end up arguing that they themselves are the ones who are committing that particular logial fallacy.


Your point about more freedom necessitating more responsibility. I see it as an arbitrary statement, unsupported by any facts or reasoning.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the OP's first claims in this thread was that around 6 months a fetus can experience consciousness and feelings. I linked to a scientific article explaining why that's not true: the fetus remains sedated and unconscious until birth. The OP ignored my evidence.

Now we have an equally arbitrary claim that sometime after 3 months the fetus possesses a faculty of reason! I wonder if this development occurs before or after the fetus experiences consciousness and feelings. Maybe someone could point me to a study or article that offers evidence for any of this.

Researchers have trouble finding evidence for a rational toddler. So it seems incredible to assert the existence of a rational fetus. I'm not told exactly how or when the fetus gains a rational faculty, yet my opponent appears certain that it can and does. Perhaps I should just agree to disagree and congratulate him on his newborn faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2019 at 12:57 PM, DonAthos said:

So what do you say? Given an (actual) embryo, a true "piece of protoplasm," being brought to term via test tube, do we agree that initially it is not a human being, and subject to termination, but at some point thereafter, it is a human being and cannot be terminated/aborted, and must instead be cared for?

No. As long as the baby is generated and sustained by the lab, it is the property of the lab, or whoever employs the lab. Also, we're dealing with an artificial gestation, which is fundamentally different than a natural one. Potentially the lab could prevent the baby from ever gaining rights, by never allowing it to achieve consciousness or independence. This potential does not exist with natural gestations. Therefore the state might have some interest in regulating artificial "births," the process by which the lab baby would be separated from its artificial "mother"--whatever machines and apparatuses of which that would consist.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2019 at 4:12 PM, MisterSwig said:

That's the differentia. What about the genus: animal? When is it an animal?

You are essentially claiming it "becomes" an animal one Plank Time after full birth, but not one Plank time before full birth. Think about how ridiculous such a claim is please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, EC said:

You are essentially claiming it "becomes" an animal one Plank Time after full birth, but not one Plank time before full birth. Think about how ridiculous such a claim is please.

Did you forget to make an actual argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2019 at 12:57 PM, DonAthos said:

And if a mother could have an obligation to her newborn+1 day, why could she not have an obligation to her newborn-1 day? Because that entity is magically transformed at birth, from an unperson to a human being?

I previously answered this question on this thread or the other one, but I'll do it again, since it's important.

There is nothing "magical" about the change that occurs during birth.

Before birth the fetus is not engaged in a process of self-generated, self-sustaining action. It is contained within the womb of its mother. It is immersed in her amniotic fluid. It is nourished by her blood via an umbilical connection to the placenta. It even relies on the mother to remove its waste (nutrient-depleted blood). At this pre-birth stage the fetus is not a life form. It is systematically, anatomically, physically dependent upon its mother. This should be obvious when you consider the fact that if the mother dies, the fetus will also die, unless it is promptly removed from the dead mother's womb.

The pre-birth fetus has not engaged basic, primary systems that are necessary for its potential life form. It has not breathed air, to supply itself with oxygen, and it has not eaten food, to supply itself with nutrients. But that all changes the moment it is born, the moment it becomes a living entity that we call a human being.

Now, I suspect that you know all that. You know what life is to the Objectivist. You know that a pre-birth fetus does not qualify as a life form. I think this is why you disregard that information, so you can continue believing that life and rights are all about a hypothetical mental aspect of the fetus. And when I try to address your unsupported assertion with evidence against it, you ignore that too. Do you look at scientific research anymore? It seems like you have little left but distractions and the ability to project your own psychology on to others. I am not the one descending into rationalism and shamanism.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Did you forget to make an actual argument?

I made the simplest possible argument-- that the identity of an entity does not suddenly "come into being" from one infinitesimal time period to another. I'm talking about human babies here but it applies to everything, including the universe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, EC said:

I made the simplest possible argument-- that the identity of an entity does not suddenly "come into being" from one infinitesimal time period to another. I'm talking about human babies here but it applies to everything, including the universe. 

Identity is not a static thing. Things change, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly. In due course, life ends from one moment to the next, and it begins from one moment to the next. Is a fresh corpse still a human being, because "identity does not suddenly come into being"?

Besides, it can take hours to give birth. Your "infinitesimal time period" argument makes no sense. You're straw-manning, because you don't want to deal with the actual process of birth. You just want to point and blurt out, "Ridiculous!" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had already thought after I posted that certain things, virtual particles for instance, can "pop" in and out of existence. You are correct that death can be instant also. But I don't believe an animal's life comes into existence instantaneously at birth, it's a process over weeks and months. They call mammalian birth live birth for a reason, the animal is alive during birth. It's also why there are stillborn births where the animal is "born" dead. You are attempting to wipe out these facts, i.e., reality, to preserve your rationalization that it's appropriate for mother's to choose late term abortions (outside of things like threats to her health, of course). She has already made her choice when she chose not to abort before the fetus became viable as a living child. 

Edited by EC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that you are trying to argue for what you consider the "official" Objectivist position is on this issue, but I think either that position is wrong on late-term abortion or it's not as "official" as it's made out to be as @DonAthos has been arguing. I think (very limited) rights begin when a being develops the faculty or reason (a fully or nearly fully developed brain capable of producing a conceptual mind) develops regardless of it's ability to use that faculty yet.

Edited by EC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2019 at 1:13 AM, softwareNerd said:

The fact that things have changed and made it safer makes it even more likely that Ran would agree with full-term abortions. Also, the simple fact that she said -- albeit off the cuff -- that the line is drawn at birth. 

I'm always a little wary of arguments that go "this is what Rand would have thought"... because its basically speculation and -- much more importantly -- it does not matter a great deal to whether the conclusion is right or wrong. So, it almost always becomes two sides contesting what is ultimately an appeal to authority. So, both sides end up arguing that they themselves are the ones who are committing that particular logial fallacy.


Your point about more freedom necessitating more responsibility. I see it as an arbitrary statement, unsupported by any facts or reasoning.

 

 

The requirements of freedom (and more freedom), which allow us access to more options/alternatives, create the necessity of making many more identifications, evaluations, i.e. thought and moral choices. That's what I consider as the "responsibility" in the old saying. The opposite of arbitrary, I think you'll agree.

Yes, I'm hesitant too about claims "what Rand would think". When it replaces full argumentation, I'm dismissive of the ploy. For my part, the few times I refer to it in general debate, it signified a shorthand for what I think is consistent with the metaphysics (etc.) of Objectivism, but it simply means I apply her method as my own, the ultimate point being independence, even from Rand's authority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Spanish motto "Take what you want and pay for it, says God" gathered respect in Rand's circle, I saw somewhere. It's a good summation that plays partly on what it means to "want". What for, for whose and which purpose? And partly, what it means to "pay"? The new, 'good' things which come into our lives from science and technology, if one is to be objective, ~add~ to our self-responsibility of identifying and evaluating, not lessening that. The skeptical subjectivist Left very visibly cut off the "...and pay for it" section.  (Take what you want. Period). *It* - the means or technology - is 'there', (as a sort of 'metaphysical given'), I want it and I must be given it, as my human right - in effect. Why should leftists now be agitating for 'full-term abortion' ? (apart from their pleasure in sticking it to the Christians). The right to abortion, alone, was an achievement, and still hasn't been fully won, but this wasn't enough for some pro-choicers. Now they declare it must be accepted by everyone to be 'a right' that can be claimed up until the last minute. I emphasise I don't argue against that right, instead, against their immorality and for the morality of a mother. Whatever action is taken causelessly is arbitrary, at best. The hierarchy of values of the pregnant mother going to full term, signifies a very high value in her unborn fetus. A value which, she understands, will be taken on into the huge responsibility of nurturing the child's life for decades. For that value to be ended at this final stage, requires an extraordinary, greater value/disvalue she discovers. Or else, denying and rejecting her initial value in favor of a lesser or non-value, she commits a self-sacrifice (with the emotions which follow). Another, and irrational, unthinking and non-valuing kind of woman who enters into and sustains her pregnancy on the basis of "I can change my mind at any stage" at whim, who views abortion up until birth like a kind of last minute contraception, without even the consideration of adoption, would naturally be a terribly poor mother, anyway. She proves she cannot "pay" for her values.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Another, and irrational, unthinking and non-valuing kind of woman who enters into and sustains her pregnancy on the basis of "I can change my mind at any stage" (at whim), who views abortion up until the last minute like a kind of last minute contraception, without even the consideration of adoption, would naturally be a terribly poor mother, anyway.

You are talking about a tiny percentage of women. Less than 2% of abortions take place after 21 weeks. Is it your contention that most of these women have abortions as a means of "last minute contraception"? That's simply wrong, literally and figuratively. Most states regulate late-term abortions for the mother's mental or physical health. It's not that simple to get one. Sometimes there needs to be several doctors signing off on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

You are talking about a tiny percentage of women. Less than 2% of abortions take place after 21 weeks. Is it your contention that most of these women have abortions as a means of "last minute contraception"? That's simply wrong, literally and figuratively. Most states regulate late-term abortions for the mother's mental or physical health. It's not that simple to get one. Sometimes there needs to be several doctors signing off on it.

That 2% is the present statistic. Would you say it's likely to remain stable, increase or decrease? Ime, wholesale acceptance by a society after the government gives its 'consent' will increase numbers. When it becomes a "right", one must know there will be more abuses by some irrational mothers. I think it's wrong in the first place for the state to come between the patient and his-her selected physician, so when medical intervention is essential for a mother's life, the doctor has the obligation - to his patient - to abort, upon his assessment. This precludes and precedes any "right" to 'full-term abortion'. The procedure *must* be done, and quickly in an emergency. (As there's risk of her, or her family's, legal action against her doctor, she should earlier have to sign a waiver). Therefore, given the existing necessity of emergency abortions and other operations, to what purpose is the "right"?

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

That 2% is the present statistic. Would you say it's likely to remain stable, increase or decrease?

I actually bumped it to 2% from 1.3%, because California doesn't report abortion statistics to the CDC, and I'm guessing it has slightly more late-term abortions than the national average. I doubt the overall percentage will get much higher though, because of increased availability and effectiveness of contraception and early-stage abortion pills, the fact that most women actually want their babies or can be convinced to give them up for adoption, and increasing medical options for saving problematic pregnancies, among other factors.

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Therefore, given the existing necessity of emergency abortions and other operations, to what purpose is the "right"?

To recognize someone's freedom of action. It has nothing to do with emergency situations.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/new-york-and-virginia-push-expand-abortion-rights/581959/

Looks as if some Democrat politicians are trapped in a contradiction, trying to "expand abortion rights" in the face of the large majority of the electorate who rightly don't want this. Scoring ideological/political points against the opposition, despite a predictable loss of some political support? Seems insane, but what else can explain the Dems' motives?

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
On 4/9/2019 at 12:12 AM, MisterSwig said:

 

To recognize someone's freedom of action. It has nothing to do with emergency situations.  

Which is why I will defend an individual's right to freedom of action, while I may oppose or dislike what she/he does. Freedom too, has a context - free from what, free to do what? That then is what one takes from an ethical code. Individual rights correctly don't stipulate or advise one's thoughts and acts, simply that everyone within "a geographical area" has those *positive* rights (implicitly requiring that one doesn't restrict others' free acts). They are the only acceptable moral standard for humans among other humans in society, but are not a moral code, per se. Their span is (necessarily) very wide, to cover all types of moralities.

Free then, means free from others (and the government, which amounts to the same thing); in my understanding, also, it means "free" to make one's own wrong judgments and mistakes without regulation or 'correction' (always by the government). 

I think I'm right that the Roe vs. Wade decision has a "viability" time-frame clause written into it. That judgment was objectively good. There is no *moral* reason to extend that, that I can see. This is only imo being used as a political football. While I oppose this, morally (extended abortion, barring medical emergencies) I often wonder if other ad hoc 'additions' to or tinkering with rights in the USA are not faint compromises with the real thing: they seem okay on the surface and short term, but have the incalculably large downside effect of putting off and deferring a complete and blanketing individual rights, a system we know covers all freedoms of action known to mankind. Kicking them down the road, so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2019 at 3:36 PM, whYNOT said:

When it becomes a "right", one must know there will be more abuses by some irrational mothers.

Someone who does something irrrationally doesn't need implicit acceptance. Generally, when something becomes a right (freedom of action), people tend towards more rational action than before. On top of that, you don't even know why the 1.3% of women got the late-term abortions. Perhaps 100% were from sound medical advice. The low numbers of support suggest even more that none of these decisions were made on a whim. Suggesting that most of these women must be irrational somehow (or that legally expanding this right would increase late-term abortions beyond what is reasonable) is very unfair, and sexist.

I am against late-term abortions as far as doing it for reasons other than medical concern, but that's between the woman and her doctor. That's her right of privacy. I support that right completely, and I think it would actually encourage more rational action if late-term abortion is generally legal.

Whether a particular late-term abortion qualifies as infanticide or not depends on viability outside the womb. A doctor could and should make that distinction (and if they can't, I think that would qualify as fraud if they then performed the abortion on the woman).

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Seems insane, but what else can explain the Dems' motives?

Because they believe it's right. It's the simplest explanation.

No, I don't like Democrats, but it's not a bad thing to do what's right even when most people think it's wrong.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
 
 
5
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Someone who does something irrrationally doesn't need implicit acceptance. Generally, when something becomes a right (freedom of action), people tend towards more rational action than before. On top of that, you don't even know why the 1.3% of women got the late-term abortions. Perhaps 100% were from sound medical advice. The low numbers of support suggest even more that none of these decisions were made on a whim. Suggesting that most of these women must be irrational somehow (or that legally expanding this right would increase late-term abortions beyond what is reasonable) is very unfair, and sexist.

I am against late-term abortions as far as doing it for reasons other than medical concern, but that's between the woman and her doctor. That's her right of privacy. I support that right completely, and I think it would actually encourage more rational action if late-term abortion is generally legal.

Whether a particular late-term abortion qualifies as infanticide or not depends on viability outside the womb. A doctor could and should make that distinction (and if they can't, I think that would qualify as fraud if they then performed the abortion on the woman).

Because they believe it's right. It's the simplest explanation.

No, I don't like Democrats, but it's not a bad thing to do what's right even when most people think it's wrong.

"Sexist"? That is puzzling. You should explain that. Are females not also capable of irrationality?

We are discussing life, here. The inherent value which life is to everyone, lacking which each past, future and living human could not exist, and with special emphasis from Objectivism's standpoint. I have carefully not gone as far as introducing infanticide, as you do, but what is a viable fetus, but living? Not with its own rights, but alive?

Perhaps, and I offer a suggestion, the O'ist stance can be 'updated' as the science of fetology adapts and improves. I propose that now a viable fetus is no longer a "potential" but an "actual". Birth is longer the beginning of a life (roughly, as Rand had it, I think). Nearly all mothers already implicitly or explicitly recognize this fact, although lacking the philosophical base. 

Bearing in mind that the huge majority of women are opposed to late term abortion, i.e. how superfluous any new bill or act would be for them, I had briefly considered that Democrats were acting on a principle. Ha. Sorry to say, I believe they are not the Democrats of old (like of the JFK era). And what can the "principle" be, but that a mother can and must be rid of her unborn at any stage, as pleases her. Since she has no responsibility, little free will, and must not be held accountable for delaying her abortion. She is a victim of "society", "men", (etc.) How they love their victims.

(And most odd, for Leftists who 'think with their feelings', they selectively appear to have no compassion for the pain the fetus suffers (which it does, I've established: the only differences of opinion are about how many weeks the fetus' physiology is sufficiently developed)). 

Personally, I give due, conversely, to conservatives/religionists who know the consequences of poor choices and have greater individualism, self-control, free will and character. For all their mystical premises, they arrive at the same place which Objectivists can and do, a deep value for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Which is why I will defend an individual's right to freedom of action, while I may oppose or dislike what she/he does.

The problem is that, in this case, it's the liberals who are defending an individual right, even if they're doing it poorly. So when you attack the small percentage of women whom you consider immoral, and accuse the Dems of bad motives, you give strength to the opponents of abortion rights. The religious conservatives are far worse on this issue, and much more deserving of condemnation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

The problem is that, in this case, it's the liberals who are defending an individual right, even if they're doing it poorly. So when you attack the small percentage of women whom you consider immoral, and accuse the Dems of bad motives, you give strength to the opponents of abortion rights. The religious conservatives are far worse on this issue, and much more deserving of condemnation.

I take your point, MrSwig. The abortion battle is always ongoing over there, though I still doubt Dem politicians gratuitously pushing abortion to an extreme, possibly using the issue for ammunition or shock value. If anyone of the left or the right is on this forum and reads what I say as being soft on abortion, I repeat what I've have said several times, the rights of the woman remain (at any stage of pregnancy). I trust the "moral" position can hopefully be understood as the rationally-selfish, ethical position, radically different from mainstream "moralizing".

In a nutshell, how can an individual become the creator, by way of her body, of a viable life -- and also -- the destroyer of life? Here is a self-contradiction, not easy to live with, for the woman above all, naturally.

(Maybe not really relevant, but there were a few experiences I've been involved in, thankfully not up to late terms, and at a time abortion was illegal).

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...