fletch

I would suggest that a "fully functional and independent" organism still attached to it's mother deserves the same rights that a "fully functional and independent" organism just recently detatched from it's mother deserves. If a mother takes a newborn home from the hospital , throws it in a crib and forgets about it, the infant will die. The mother will rightfully be charged in the infants death. Why? Because she is morally and legally responsible for the childs care. The mothers' 'right to act' does not include neglect. The disagreement here, it seems to me, is whether the mothers 'right to act' includes aborting a fully functional and independent human organism. To me, there is no moral difference between killing a baby 5 minutes after giving birth and performing an abortion 6 minutes earlier. Both accomplish the same thing--the destruction of human life.

Antonio, I believe that is what is know as a nonsequitur.

softwarenerd, If that is the case, by what authority are Objectivists on this site declaring that she believed that abortion should be legal up to the moment of delivery? Mimpy, It is more than simple resemblance, though. At some point, this clump of cells, as you call it, has its own heart, brain, lungs, liver, kindeys, etc. It not only resembles a human baby, it is a human baby.

But am I wrong to assume that you support a womans 'right' to do so? Further, would it be morally right to abort a healthy, third-trimester baby that could survive on its own outside the womb? Further yet, would a woman who did choose a third trimester abortion be making a rational decision? If so, by what measure? A person does not wake up one morning and find herself 9 months pregnant. At every stage along the way up to that point, the woman has deemed the pregnancy acceptable. To say that once you reach a certain point--be it viability or some other objective measure--abortion is no longer an option does not strike me as overly burdensome. Expecting a woman to 'finish the job' so to speak, and put the child up for adoption seems a morally superior option for those who hold life in such high esteem.

In the link you provided, Peikoff addresses only first trimester embryos. I think we all agree that these are potential not actual humans. What is at issue is the status of embryos in the third trimester. What is at issue here is 'the later stages of pregnancy.' Objectivists seem to indicate that Ayn Rand resolved what she appeared to leave unresolved here. Did she at some point close the circle?

In other words, if 5 minutes after a child is born the mother decides to take its life, the mother would be guilty of murder. However, if the mother had made the same decision 6 minutes earlier, she was just exercising her freedom of choice. That is the Objectivist position? That is nonsense. I can only assume that is aimed at me. Let me say this: I discovered Ayn Rand in september of 1998. Since then I have read virtually everything she has ever written. I confess that I didnt understand all of it , but what I understood I loved. If I learned one thing from her it was to think for myself. How ironic is it that the first time in 19 years that I actually discuss a topic with an Objectivist it is the one topic I disagree with Objectivism on: abortion. If I have to accept that life begins at birth to be an Objectivist, then I am not an Objectivist. It is a sad moment, but I'll live. It does answer a lingering question of mine--why Objectivism never caught on. It is an exclusive not inclusive club. I'll do that.

You obviously have more respect for the good Justice than I do. But that is an easy thing to do--seing as I have no respect for her.

I didnt say I was surprised by it. You can guess on how that woman will vote before she even hears the case. I just happen to have so little respect for her judgment that if her conclusions on any matter match mine, I am taking a second look at mine.

You might argue that it is possible for humanity to survive without rights but it can only thrive in those eras and civilizations that recognize individual rights.

I see that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote the dissenting opinion. I know that if Justice Ginsburg was the leading advacate for a position of mine, I would rethink my position.

DavidOdden, What makes no sense is your claim that a baby is a non-person inside the womb and magically becomes a person the second it leaves the womb. At some point, prior to birth, the non-person in the womb becomes a separate and distinct person with a human mind heart and body of its own. It may be wholly dependent upon the mother, but that is not something that birth resolves. Dependence continues long after birth. Initially, that is true, but it is also true that it is the role of a fetus to become a person. This happens in the womb. The ability to survive on ones own cannot be the main criteria for human life, if it is then there are whole continents on this planet free of human life forms.

I think it is an important step, but not the most important step. Would it not make more sense to either induce birth or ride out the last month or so of pregnancy and put the child up for adoption rather than terminate it? One would have to question the rationality of a mother who would terminate in the eighth month of a healthy prenancy for lifestyle reasons. It seems to me that at some point between conception and birth the line is crossed between potentiality and actuality of human life. Why not let medical science determine that point, and allow abortions to take place up to that point. Being the uncle of a child born in the eighth month of pregnancy, I cannot view any third trimester abortion as anything short of infanticide. Supporting abortion up to the moment of birth is barbarism.

And when would that be?

I get the objectivist position on a womans right to an abortion, what I dont understand is the objectivist position on when life begins. It cant possibly be that life begins at the moment of birth, can it?

Not at all. I dont see christianity as a threat. Muslims are the real outside threat to liberty. The secular irreligious left is the inside threat to liberty. It seems to me that christians and objectivist atheists should be united on this point.

I have never understood the atheist/objectivist fear of the of the christian boogeyman. Perhaps someone could explain it to me. Your statement makes it seem as if there is no diference between life under a real 'Moslem caliphate' and an imagined 'Christian theocracy.' The surrender at any costers are the Islamic apoligists of the irreligious left. They are the ones that should be feared and resisted not the Christians, the vast majority of whom are more than willing to fight off the Islamic hoards. How does the saying go? The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Would you expect any less from a leftist like Obama? I wonder, is a religious liberal worse than a secular one?