Abortion

[DavidOdden]

However, actions have consequences. It is quite simple, therefore, if you don't want children, don't have sex. Since pregnancy is a natural by-product of sexual intercourse, if a man and a woman choose to have sex, they are both accepting the risk of pregnancy (regardless of the precautions they take).

It's true that actions have consequences, and a woman must deal with the consequences for her body of having sex. Abortion is a possible consequence, as is child-birth. The woman has the right to decide, since in fact there is no conflict of rights in having an abortion.

This creates a contract between the parents and the foetus/potential/unborn human...

No, there is no contract. I suggest investigating the concept "contract" in depth, and you will understand why there is no "contract with a fetus".

[rebelconservative]

No, there is no contract. I suggest investigating the concept "contract" in depth, and you will understand why there is no "contract with a fetus".

thanks for pointing that out, I never meant to suggest that foetus/unborn human was able to agree to a bilateral arrangement. However, it should be assumed that the mother is agreeing to be legally bound to a unilateral contract (imposing legal obligations only on herself, rather than a reciprocal arrangement), as she is engaging in voluntary behaviour likely to lead to pregnancy. If she does not want to be legally bound, she should not have sex. Clearly, the foetus/unborn human is unable to agree to a contract in the normal (bilateral) way, as it is an exceptional circumstance, we have to assume that the foetus/unborn human desires to be born (erring on the side of caution) and therefore, the contract is a unilateral offer on the side of the mother, through her volitional acts. Basically the argument is that the act of consensual sex, is an acceptance of a unilateral contract, with binding obligations on both the mother and father.

Edited March 18, 2009 by rebelconservative

[softwareNerd]

..., it should be assumed that the mother is agreeing to be legally bound to a unilateral contract (imposing legal obligations only on herself, ...

All this ground has been covered more than once in this thread.

[rebelconservative]

All this ground has been covered more than once in this thread.

Really? I searched for "unilateral" and "contract" in this topic, all that came up was my post and your response, quoting me.

[softwareNerd]

Really? I searched for "unilateral" and "contract" in this topic, all that came up was my post and your response, quoting me.

I can understand the reluctance to read a 900-post thread. Just wanted to tell you that your point has already been raised and that people have replied to that point. I doubt a text search will work, since there are so many ways to say the same thing. There are really only two or three repeated arguments on either side of this debate, but each can be stated in a wide variety of terms. Anyhow, if you don't get too many responses, it's because they're somewhere in here already.

[rebelconservative]

I can understand the reluctance to read a 900-post thread. Just wanted to tell you that your point has already been raised and that people have replied to that point. I doubt a text search will work, since there are so many ways to say the same thing. There are really only two or three repeated arguments on either side of this debate, but each can be stated in a wide variety of terms. Anyhow, if you don't get too many responses, it's because they're somewhere in here already.

Thanks. I searched again, just for "contract" and I see what you mean.

However, all of the other times that argument is used, people seem to be arguing based on a typical "bilateral" contract. This is clearly a nonsense, as the foetus/unborn human can not be party to such an agreement. The point I am making is different, that the mother's act of consensual sex constitutes a unilateralcontract. Hopefully people will appreciate the distinction.

[Nacirema]

...actions have consequences. It is quite simple, therefore, if you don't want children, don't have sex. Since pregnancy is a natural by-product of sexual intercourse, if a man and a woman choose to have sex, they are both accepting the risk of pregnancy (regardless of the precautions they take).

Let's apply this argument in other places...

"Actions have consequences. It is quite simple, therefore: if you don't want a stomach ache, don't eat. Since a stomach ache is a natural by-product of eating, it a man or woman choose to eat, they are both accepting the risk of a indigestion (regardless of how their food may have been prepared).

Therefore, antacids are immoral."

"Actions have consequences. It is quite simple, therefore: if you don't want to get sick, don't go outside. Since disease is a natural by product of exposing yourself to outside air that may have contagions, if a man chooses to go for a walk, he is accepting the risk of disease. Therefore, medicinal treatment of colds is immoral."

Also, several times you mention it as "extremely likely" that sex will result in pregnancy, but this it not true. Many birth controls are nearly (or above) 90% success rate, starting with condoms. Hormone controllers (pills, patches, the new inserts [i forget their proper name]) have a near 99% success rate. With odds of 10% and 1% of pregnancy expected, respectively (not to mention the even greater unlikelihood if the two are used simultaneously), can you still say that pregnancy should be the expected result of all consensual sex?

[rebelconservative]

Let's apply this argument in other places...

"Actions have consequences. It is quite simple, therefore: if you don't want a stomach ache, don't eat. Since a stomach ache is a natural by-product of eating, it a man or woman choose to eat, they are both accepting the risk of a indigestion (regardless of how their food may have been prepared).

Therefore, antacids are immoral."

no. actions have consequences, you could get a stomach ache if you eat too much, therefore if you gorge yourself at a restaurant, to sue the owner for damages, would be wrong.

"Actions have consequences. It is quite simple, therefore: if you don't want to get sick, don't go outside. Since disease is a natural by product of exposing yourself to outside air that may have contagions, if a man chooses to go for a walk, he is accepting the risk of disease. Therefore, medicinal treatment of colds is immoral."

no. you could potentially pick up a disease from going for a walk due to airborne pathogens, therefore, to sue the owner of the park for your medical expenses would be wrong.

Also, several times you mention it as "extremely likely" that sex will result in pregnancy, but this it not true.

did I ever say it was extremely likely? I don't believe I did. I believe I, accurately, stated that it was a possibility.

Many birth controls are nearly (or above) 90% success rate, starting with condoms. Hormone controllers (pills, patches, the new inserts [i forget their proper name]) have a near 99% success rate. With odds of 10% and 1% of pregnancy expected, respectively (not to mention the even greater unlikelihood if the two are used simultaneously), can you still say that pregnancy should be the expected result of all consensual sex?

condoms are 90% if used correctly, though IUD's are better I am no sure of the odds. but even if the odds are 1%, even if the odds were 0.00001%, that would not change the argument one iota, as the woman would be aware of the risk, however slight. she would either accept that or not.

let me offer an imperfect analogy of the top off my head - a company could have a promotion, stating that they would give $100,000,000 if someone found three golden tickets in their cereal boxes. if they only put three (non-transferable) tickets inside three boxes (one in each box), out of the millions of boxes they sell each year, the chances of one person finding them all are pretty remote. but if someone were to find all three, however unlikely, they would still have to pay up.

Edited March 18, 2009 by rebelconservative

[TheEgoist]

no. actions have consequences, you could get a stomach ache if you eat too much, therefore if you gorge yourself at a restaurant, to sue the owner for damages, would be wrong.

no. you could potentially pick up a disease from going for a walk due to airborne pathogens, therefore, to sue the owner of the park for your medical expenses would be wrong.

Would it be unreasonable to take some stomach medicine when a stomach ache occurs? Would it be unreasonable to go see a doctor if you pick up a disease?

You are acting like a fetus has rights, but you have provided no justification for that, what seems to be, religious belief.

[softwareNerd]

no. actions have consequences, you could get a stomach ache if you eat too much, therefore if you gorge yourself at a restaurant, to sue the owner for damages, would be wrong.

You missed his point. Why talk about suing the owner? The question was whether to take an antacid. The owner analogy assumes that the fetus has some type of rights: it begs the question.

[Marc K.]

rebelconservative:

Are you suggesting that sex should be illegal unless you want children?

[rebelconservative]

I will address this tomorrow, it is late here. sorry.

one quick question though -

if a man and woman have a one-night-stand and the woman has the baby, is the man obliged to pay child support?

rebelconservative:

Are you suggesting that sex should be illegal unless you want children?

illegal? no, of course not. what gave you that impression?

[K-Mac]

In my opinion, unless abortion is due to rape, incest, or the life of the mother being in jeopardy, I consider it unethical.

From Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life; Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh...

Abortion can be a moral choice for the significant minority of pregnancies due to a failure of properly-used birth control. Responsible adults do not allow themselves to be buffeted about in life by accidental circumstances. Instead, they consciously direct the course of their lives by their own rational judgment. So a woman (and her partner) ought not bear a child just because she happens to become pregnant, despite careful use of birth control. Instead, they ought to consider the impact of the pregnancy and resulting child on their health, finances, careers, and well-being. They ought to consider whether their relationship is stable enough to withstand the strain of raising a child. They ought to have a child only if they are willing and able to be good parents. That’s why, when the birth control of a sexually responsible couple fails, terminating an unwanted pregnancy is a morally responsible course.

Opponents of abortion often claim that couples can protect themselves against unwanted pregnancy by refraining from sex entirely. However, sex is a magnificent human value integral to any healthy, developed romantic relationship. Moreover, carrying a pregnancy to term itself involves some risk, as well as time, effort, and endurance. Putting up a child for adoption can involve high emotional costs. And raising a child to adulthood is an 18-year (and longer) commitment of time, energy, and resources. Those costs may be more than many couples are willing to bear, including married couples. So people who condemn abortion as immoral even when birth control fails (or worse, who advocate a ban) demand that a woman and her partner choose between abstinence and procreation. That is morally wrong: it’s not a choice that couples in a modern society should be forced to make.

So, Erik and those that agree with him, are you suggesting that I am unethical or immoral if I have an abortion after becoming pregnant even when my husband and I have properly used birth control? Do you think I should be forced to give birth (and give up my pursuit of happiness?) If so, do you expect me or anyone else to respect your rights?

Again, from the quoted article...

Couples who cannot be bothered to use birth control or who use it carelessly, then terminate the resulting pregnancy by abortion, understandably earn the frustration of much of the public. Yet such abortions should not be restricted or outlawed, nor even condemned as immoral. The fact that a fetus is not a person means that the government must uphold the woman’s right to choose whether to maintain or terminate a pregnancy, regardless of how it was caused. However, respect for a woman’s rights does not require endorsing her decision to terminate a pregnancy. Yet if an unwanted pregnancy was caused by irresponsible behavior, then that behavior ought to be morally blamed, not any ensuing abortion. Similarly, if a skier breaks his leg by skiing too fast in dangerous terrain, we ought to blame him for that skiing, not for his sensible choice to restore his leg to health by surgery.

Forcing an irresponsible (or responsible) person to give birth is ridiculous. If nothing else, can you imagine how much worse off mankind would be if every unwanted child in history had been born? There are enough psychologically screwed up unwanted people running around out there without us outlawing abortion.

So the next "argument" many people give is, "Well, we shouldn't outlaw it. No one should force you to have a baby." Then what's your point? No one is arguing you should like abortion. As Objectivists, I think we respect life more than any other type of person out there; however, it's that very respect for life that demands a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body.

Edited March 18, 2009 by K-Mac

[softwareNerd]

one quick question though -

if a man and woman have a one-night-stand and the woman has the baby, is the man obliged to pay child support?

No, definitely not. Under US law, he's almost certainly obliged; but, in most cases that is improper law. (I say most, because one can always come up with some specific concrete example where he would be obliged.)

Still, this side-steps the only issue that matters: whether sperm and human cancer cells have rights and should be protected under law, or whether these are closer in nature to property of their host human.

[Jake_Ellison]

illegal? no, of course not. what gave you that impression?

The fact that anyone having sex is risking a twenty year sentence by having to dedicate their lives to raising the child.

As for condoning abortion after a rape, even though you think it is murder: since when is the murder of a third person justified by having been raped?

The only question is: What is a man? Any reasonable person (someone not taking the Church at their word, to begin with) must conclude that a fetus is not a man. A fetus is human the way my toe nails are human, and the way the egg of a chicken is chicken. It is not an independently existing human being.

[rebelconservative]

You missed his point. Why talk about suing the owner? The question was whether to take an antacid. The owner analogy assumes that the fetus has some type of rights: it begs the question.

do you not think that to compare a foetus, which is an early stage of human development, to excess acid is rather silly?

the owner analogy does assume the foetus has rights, yes, because it does - it is human, containing everything necessary to be defined as human. even if we define it as a 'potential' life, it is deserving of some rights by virtue of its humanity. naturally, when this is in conflict with the mother's right to life, hers takes precedence - the actual over the potential. however, when it is a matter of the convenience or desires of a mother who agreed and consented to the foetus being in her body, the right to life is held paramount. the mother retains the right to do what she wants with her own body, but she established a unilateral contract when she consented to sex inviting the foetus and is obliged to carry it to term.

No, definitely not. Under US law, he's almost certainly obliged; but, in most cases that is improper law. (I say most, because one can always come up with some specific concrete example where he would be obliged.)

I must admit, I am surprised at this response. I would be interested in what other people think.

if, for the sake of argument, abortion was illegal, would he then be obliged to pay child support?

Still, this side-steps the only issue that matters: whether sperm and human cancer cells have rights and should be protected under law, or whether these are closer in nature to property of their host human.

a foetus is not analogous to cancer cells, skin cells, toe nail etc. none of those things are capable of developing into an adult human. a foetus is one of the first stages in natural human development, that is fundamentally different.

The fact that anyone having sex is risking a twenty year sentence by having to dedicate their lives to raising the child.

how does that suggest that sex should be illegal?

As for condoning abortion after a rape, even though you think it is murder: since when is the murder of a third person justified by having been raped?

I do not condone it, I said you can not judge the morality of it as it is an emergency situation. a rape victim did not agree to the foetus/potential human being in their body, her rights outweigh the rights of the foetus - whereas a woman who had consensual sex has and is responsible for the foetus/potential human being in her body.

The only question is: What is a man? Any reasonable person (someone not taking the Church at their word, to begin with) must conclude that a fetus is not a man. A fetus is human the way my toe nails are human, and the way the egg of a chicken is chicken. It is not an independently existing human being.

your toenails will never grow into an independently existing, reasoning human, will they? it seems a rather silly example.

an egg is a chicken in the way that a chick is a chicken, the way that a cockerel is a chicken, the way that a rooster is a chicken. similarly, a foetus is a human in the way an infant, child, adolescent, adult, senior is human. eggs and foetuses are simply the first stage of development for their respective species.

also, are you accepting that the foetus is an existing human, if not an independent one?

aside from taking your word for it... why must a reasonable person conclude that a foetus is not a man?

if not at conception, at what arbitrary point, can we consider the foetus to be human?

is it when the foetus can survive independently of the mother? so abortion is acceptable at... 19 weeks? 20 weeks? 21 weeks...?

is it when the foetus can survive without medical care?

is it birth? so abortion is acceptable at 8 months twenty days?

is it when the child becomes able to reason? so infanticide is acceptable?

is it when it can look after itself? so killing children is acceptable upto around seven years of age?

[rebelconservative]

So, Erik and those that agree with him, are you suggesting that I am unethical or immoral if I have an abortion after becoming pregnant even when my husband and I have properly used birth control?

yes, you knew that you could create human life when you had sex, regardless of using birth control the risk remains.

Do you think I should be forced to give birth (and give up my pursuit of happiness?)

yes. you should have thought about that before you had sex and created life. if you want sex without the risk of children, get sterilised.

If so, do you expect me or anyone else to respect your rights?

of course I do, but I also expect to be held accountable for my actions.

Forcing an irresponsible (or responsible) person to give birth is ridiculous. If nothing else, can you imagine how much worse off mankind would be if every unwanted child in history had been born? There are enough psychologically screwed up unwanted people running around out there without us outlawing abortion.

is a utilitarian argument consistent with Objectivism?

I am genuinely asking (I am new here) but I would be surprised if it was.

As Objectivists, I think we respect life more than any other type of person out there; however, it's that very respect for life that demands a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body.

I fully respect the womans right to choose what to do with her own body. if a woman is pregnant after consensual sex, that is the result of her choice to have sex and she should accept the consequences.

[softwareNerd]

do you not think that to compare a foetus, which is an early stage of human development, to excess acid is rather silly?

Not really. It all depends on one's purpose in thinking about the topic. (For instance, if you're deciding how much weight a floor can take, you will include humans, dogs and furniture in your calculations and add them all up.)

Obviously a fertilized egg is different. However, that does not mean it is different for our purposes -- i.e. in the sense of being devoid of rights in any sense -- just like acid, or sperm, or cancer tissue.

Anyhow, it's all been said before.

BTW: Even your question about whether guys should be obligated to pay child support for a kid has been discussed in some detail (it might be in another thread). Added: This is one such thread. I thought there was another large one, but perhaps the threads were merged, or it might be part of one of the "child's rights" threads.

Edited March 19, 2009 by softwareNerd

[RationalBiker]

I fully respect the womans right to choose what to do with her own body. if a woman is pregnant after consensual sex, that is the result of her choice to have sex and she should accept the consequences.

Having to have an abortion is one of those potential consequences so she IS accepting the consequences of her actions.

[Jake_Ellison]

also, are you accepting that the foetus is an existing human, if not an independent one?

Humans exist independently. So no, a foetus is not a human. A fetus is made up of human cells, the same way a bodypart is.

of course I do, but I also expect to be held accountable for my actions.

By what standard?

[Jake_Ellison]

is a utilitarian argument consistent with Objectivism?

I am genuinely asking (I am new here) but I would be surprised if it was.

Not in this case. If the foetus was a human being (which existed independently), then it would have rights. That argument, then, would hold no water. (I can't imagine why you would dismiss that argument though, since you're not arguing for Objectivism. What's wrong with a utilitarian argument, in your view? Let me put it this way: Ayn Rand was a reasonable person, grounded in reality, so she would not come up with a morality which allows for forcing everyone to have unwanted children. It's clearly madness. --So, in the absence of a rational, humanist philosophy, that utilitarian argument is the next best thing. Certainly better than the edict: "a foetus is just like you and I." )

However, in Objectivism rights are objective (nothing to do with the name though). It would be pointless to have non-objective "rights". The reason why only human beings can have rights is because only we can exist autonomously, without violating other's rights, and rights cannot conflict. (it wouldn't be very objective to give a foetus, and no one else, the special right to use a woman's body for his own survival, for 9 months, now would it?)

[DavidOdden]

I hate to beat what ought to be a dead horse, but the system froze up as I was trying to reply yesterday.

However, it should be assumed that the mother is agreeing to be legally bound to a unilateral contract (imposing legal obligations only on herself, rather than a reciprocal arrangement), as she is engaging in voluntary behaviour likely to lead to pregnancy.

There is no such thing as a "unilateral contract". By nature, a contract is an agreement between two or more people. A contract is a kind of agreement that will be legally enforced; that sort of enforceable agreement does not exist with a single person. Moreover, you cannot freely assume whatever you, as a third party, wish to assume as to the contents of a contract. It is entirely unreasonable to assume that a woman having sex is thereby agreeing to bear a child, simply because you say so. If that's how contracts worked, I could inform you that by posting on this forum, you implicitly agree to pay me $100 per month to correct your philosophical errors. (I accept checks and PayPal), and then have that "contract" enforced against you.

If she does not want to be legally bound, she should not have sex.

No, you don't get to write the terms of the contract. The terms really are "if she absolutely doesn't want to have a baby or an abortion, she should not have sex with a man".

[K-Mac]

yes, you knew that you could create human life when you had sex, regardless of using birth control the risk remains.

So one should only have sex when they want children!?

You could have a wreck while driving, so don't drive. If you do get in a wreck and get injured, we should not provide you any medical care and you should remain broken and injured. You knew you could've gotten into a wreck by driving, so what were you doing driving? Is this your logic??

yes. you should have thought about that before you had sex and created life. if you want sex without the risk of children, get sterilized.

I want to have sex with the man I love and admire now. I may want children later, but to have a child now would be EXTREMELY irresponsible of me, based on my career, finances, etc. Sterilization would ruin my hopes of getting pregnant in the future, so that would be a really stupid thing for me to do. (In addition, many doctors will not sterilize women of child bearing age anyway...they say use birth control.)

Again, are you suggesting that people who love, admire and respect each other shouldn't have sex unless they want children?!

of course I do, but I also expect to be held accountable for my actions.

As RationalBiker stated, I am responsible for my actions...that's why it is MY CHOICE as to whether or not I should have the baby.

I fully respect the womans right to choose what to do with her own body.

No, you don't. You want to use force against me. That is immoral.

if a woman is pregnant after consensual sex, that is the result of her choice to have sex and she should accept the consequences.

Are you really suggesting that I should give up sex because I'm not ready to have a child, even though I'm doing everything technologically possible to prevent a pregnancy? Do you know how important sex is between two lovers? Why would I even be in a loving relationship if I were going to be in constant misery and frustration? Should women not date, not love, not feel until they're ready to have a child? Should I pass up the opportunity to be with the man I admire and value most just because I don't want a baby?!

[Marc K.]

Are you suggesting that sex should be illegal unless you want children?

OK, good. So then you are saying that it is immoral to have sex unless you want children? As K-Mac has asked.

[Nacirema]

yes, you knew that you could create human life when you had sex, regardless of using birth control the risk remains.

When you bought a new, fancy car,you knew that someone might want to steal it. Regardless of having insurance and or a car alarm the risk remains.

(In other words, while not as a reason for outlawing abortion, but as a statement of fact, I accept this).

yes. you should have thought about that before you had sex and created life. if you want sex without the risk of children, get sterilised.

You should have thought about that before you drove your car and had it stolen. If you want to travel without the risk of theft, use a bus (and don't carry a wallet, watch, briefcase, etc....now I'm just being silly).

Or, in other words....what? So in the land of RebelConsrvativ-ia, we who are not either rapists nor rape victims get three options: Never have sex, never have children, or pump out as many children as we can. Whether we can afford it or not, who cares?

As a side note, tell me, do you believe in God?

I fully respect the womans right to choose what to do with her own body. if a woman is pregnant after consensual sex, that is the result of her choice to have sex and she should accept the consequences.

I fully respect your right to own a new car. If your car gets stolen after you bought it, that is the result of your choice and you should just accept that it's gone. Definitely do not expect your insurance company to give you a check to buy a new one.