Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Abortion

Rate this topic


semm

Recommended Posts

Since she did not consent to the sex, the woman retains her rights. But if she does consent to the sex, she loses her rights? ...

But what I understand is that in your view, the woman only retains the right to direct the course of her life/decide what to do with her body if the sex is forced on her. If she consents to the sex and conceives, the woman loses her right to terminate the pregnancy. How is that moral, just, rational?

you are confusing the issue.

a woman retains the right to decide what to do with her body in either case.

when she consents to sex, she decided to do that, she decided to welcome millions of sperm into her body, she decided to run the risk that a child would be created.

when a woman did not consent to sex that conceived a child, she did not consent to the child being in her body and she can not be forced to support that life, even though the foetus has a right to life. just as I can not expect you to support me, even though I have a right to life, the woman should not be expected to support the foetus since she was not responsible for its creation.

it is moral, just and rational because it is based on her responsibility (or lack) for the creation of the child in the first place. if she bears no responsibility for something, she can not be held accountable.

since the woman who consented is responsible for the creation child, (her volitional actions led to its creation), she must be held accountable and forced to respect the child's right to life

since the woman who did not consent is not responsible for the creation of the child, she can not be held accountable and can not be forced to carry the child to term.

How about if she (or he) were using protection such as condoms, IUD, birth control pills, or whatever - and that protection failed? Obviously the couple were not intending to conceive/were taking actions to prevent conception. What is your position on that?

I think I have stated on a number of occasions that their intentions are completely irrelevant. the precautions they were taking reduced, but could never eliminate, the possibility that a child would be created. it is not about intention, or enjoyment, it is about their volitional actions. as I stated above, I may fire a gun on my property, at a target on my tree, which has a 10ft wall behind it. If I miss the target and the bullet ricochets off the tree and hits you in the leg, I am responsible for that - even though it was not my intention to shoot you.

so, just to be clear, my position is that they do not have the right to end human life simply because their precautions failed.

if they REALLY did not want children, then they have two options, sterilisation or abstinence.

just like if I REALLY don't want to pay your medical expenses, I have two options - only firing blanks on my property or not firing my gun on my property at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, just to be clear, my position is that they do not have the right to end human life simply because their precautions failed.

if they REALLY did not want children, then they have two options, sterilisation or abstinence.

just like if I REALLY don't want to pay your medical expenses, I have two options - only firing blanks on my property or not firing my gun on my property at all.

You still see no difference between the interaction between a woman and the fetus inside her, and the interaction between two human beings?

Just out of curiosity, why do you think shooting someone in the leg is wrong, and why do you think it is right for the person who shoots someone in the leg to pay their madical bill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, just to be clear, my position is that they do not have the right to end human life simply because their precautions failed.

if they REALLY did not want children, then they have two options, sterilisation or abstinence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when a woman did not consent to sex that conceived a child, she did not consent to the child being in her body and she can not be forced to support that life, even though the foetus has a right to life. just as I can not expect you to support me, even though I have a right to life, the woman should not be expected to support the foetus since she was not responsible for its creation.

it is moral, just and rational because it is based on her responsibility (or lack) for the creation of the child in the first place. if she bears no responsibility for something, she can not be held accountable.

since the woman who consented is responsible for the creation child, (her volitional actions led to its creation), she must be held accountable and forced to respect the child's right to life

since the woman who did not consent is not responsible for the creation of the child, she can not be held accountable and can not be forced to carry the child to term.

If abortion is murder, if the fetus (or even the fertilized egg, the zygote, etc., whatever its developmental stage within the mother) is an innocent human being with a right to life, then just because that innocent human being's existence was due to rape, it would still be murder to kill it, to abort it.

The fetus, resulting from rape, did not violate the woman's rights; the rapest did. It is rediculous to make an exception for murder (your view) because the fetus is a result of rape. The rape may be properly viewed as an emergency while it's occurring, until the rapist is gone, but the resulting pregnancy is not an emergency.

Further, it is well known that there are risks with pregnancy. On your view, even if there proves to be a life-threatening health risk to a women due to a continued pregnancy, that is a risk she accepted by choosing to have sex and potentially becoming pregnant. In such cases, were you consistent, you'd have to side with the fetus and say that it's just tough luck for the woman -- by virtue of becoming pregnant, she's just an incubator for the human being residing inside of her, and the state should protect the rights of the fetus even to the point of the woman's death.

What punishment do you advocate for abortion if and when it is outlawed? Perhaps we should adopt the Sharia punishment and stone women, who have or seek (attempt to murder) abortions as well as those who aid her, to death?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are confusing the issue.

a woman retains the right to decide what to do with her body in either case.

when she consents to sex, she decided to do that, she decided to welcome millions of sperm into her body, she decided to run the risk that a child would be created.

when a woman did not consent to sex that conceived a child, she did not consent to the child being in her body and she can not be forced to support that life, even though the foetus has a right to life. just as I can not expect you to support me, even though I have a right to life, the woman should not be expected to support the foetus since she was not responsible for its creation.

it is moral, just and rational because it is based on her responsibility (or lack) for the creation of the child in the first place. if she bears no responsibility for something, she can not be held accountable.

since the woman who consented is responsible for the creation child, (her volitional actions led to its creation), she must be held accountable and forced to respect the child's right to life

since the woman who did not consent is not responsible for the creation of the child, she can not be held accountable and can not be forced to carry the child to term.

I think I have stated on a number of occasions that their intentions are completely irrelevant. the precautions they were taking reduced, but could never eliminate, the possibility that a child would be created. it is not about intention, or enjoyment, it is about their volitional actions. as I stated above, I may fire a gun on my property, at a target on my tree, which has a 10ft wall behind it. If I miss the target and the bullet ricochets off the tree and hits you in the leg, I am responsible for that - even though it was not my intention to shoot you.

so, just to be clear, my position is that they do not have the right to end human life simply because their precautions failed.

if they REALLY did not want children, then they have two options, sterilisation or abstinence.

just like if I REALLY don't want to pay your medical expenses, I have two options - only firing blanks on my property or not firing my gun on my property at all.

A fetus is not yet a human being. A fetus does not have rights because it is a developemental stage of human developement. If you are seriously argueing that a fetus has rights for that reason, why don't you extend that right to eggs and sperm as well? So using spermacide or the pill is murder as well correct?

Your argument is flawed because you are equating life with human life. They are not the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If abortion is murder, if the fetus (or even the fertilized egg, the zygote, etc., whatever its developmental stage within the mother) is an innocent human being with a right to life, then just because that innocent human being's existence was due to rape, it would still be murder to kill it, to abort it.

you would be killing a human life, yes, but that does not mean it should be illegal. self-defense is a valid reason to kill someone, even though they still have a right to life.

it is regrettable, certainly, but you can not force the woman to support the life that she is not responsible for.

The fetus, resulting from rape, did not violate the woman's rights; the rapest did. It is rediculous to make an exception for murder (your view) because the fetus is a result of rape. The rape may be properly viewed as an emergency while it's occurring, until the rapist is gone, but the resulting pregnancy is not an emergency.

you can not force the woman to support the life that she is not responsible for.

just like you can not force me to support you, I am not responsible for you. if you die because I didn't support you, it is not murder.

Further, it is well known that there are risks with pregnancy. On your view, even if there proves to be a life-threatening health risk to a women due to a continued pregnancy, that is a risk she accepted by choosing to have sex and potentially becoming pregnant. In such cases, were you consistent, you'd have to side with the fetus and say that it's just tough luck for the woman -- by virtue of becoming pregnant, she's just an incubator for the human being residing inside of her, and the state should protect the rights of the fetus even to the point of the woman's death.

no, because if the woman dies, so does the foetus in all cases. if the foetus was able to survive, it would be possible to perform a c-section and get the baby out.

What punishment do you advocate for abortion if and when it is outlawed?

life in jail for the doctor and the mother, the same as for any premeditated murder.

Perhaps we should adopt the Sharia punishment and stone women, who have or seek (attempt to murder) abortions as well as those who aid her, to death?

I don't see how this is consistent with our legal system.

A fetus is not yet a human being. A fetus does not have rights because it is a developemental stage of human developement.

so at what point does one become human then...?

If you are seriously argueing that a fetus has rights for that reason, why don't you extend that right to eggs and sperm as well? So using spermacide or the pill is murder as well correct?

because eggs and sperm are not human, they contain half of the genetic material that, in conjunction with the other half, is capable of creating human life. so spermacide is not murder, because sperm is not a developmental stage of human life. and the pill just prevents ovulation, it doesn't harm the egg.

Your argument is flawed because you are equating life with human life. They are not the same thing.

it is absurd to say that it is not human life. it is one of the first stages of human development, subsequent stages will be newborn, infant, child, pre-adolescent, adolescent, adult, senior etc... if it is not human, what kind of life is it?

I am getting tired of asking this question, but here we go again. at what point does one become "human" in your eyes?

I really don't have the time or energy to bother answering any more posts that fail to address this question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am getting tired of asking this question, but here we go again. at what point does one become "human" in your eyes?

As soon as one becomes both rational and volitional, so actually much later than birth. However, that point varies from individual to individual, so it is more practical to assume one becomes human at birth. Why then? Because after birth, the baby exists as an independent being. It still needs to be provided for, but after birth anyone can do that. It is no longer dependent on one single person who would have to be enslaved were she unwilling to share her body with it. Birth is the moment when volunteers can take over.

life in jail for the doctor and the mother, the same as for any premeditated murder.

Is that also your proposed punishment for IVF, in which only a few fertilized eggs are implanted and the rest are discarded?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you would be killing a human life, yes, but that does not mean it should be illegal. self-defense is a valid reason to kill someone, even though they still have a right to life.

it is regrettable, certainly, but you can not force the woman to support the life that she is not responsible for.

you can not force the woman to support the life that she is not responsible for.

just like you can not force me to support you, I am not responsible for you. if you die because I didn't support you, it is not murder.

Self defense?

"self-defense is a valid reason to kill someone, even thought they still have a right to life."

The person who violates the rights of another person has surrendered or rejected his own rights, even perhaps his own right to life, else all punishments against rights violations, against criminals, are themselves violations of rights, each in proportion to the the punishment. Killing someone in self-defense is not a violation of the rights-violator's right to life; the would-be killer has renounced their own right to life.

Your view of rights puts rights in conflict with rights such that one can rightfully violate the rights of others in some circumstances. But there's no such thing as a right to violate the rights of others. To claim that it's proper to kill someone in self-defense even though they still have a right to life is a contradiction.

You claim that a fertilized human egg, a human zygote, a human fetus, has a right to life; that from conception on there exists a human being with a right to life.

Self defense, in the case of a rape is the woman's right, against the rapist. The rapist is physically attacking her, violating her rights, and she has every right to defend herself against the rapist, even killing the rapist in self-defense if necessary. Why? Because she in fact has a right to life and the rapist has surrendered or renounced any claim to a right to life by acting in violation of the woman's right to life.

The fertilized egg, the zygote, the fetus that results from a rape, given your view that it's an individual human being with a right to life, is an innocent third party. It is not acting in violation of the woman's right to life regardless of the fact that she was raped, regardless of the fact that she did not choose to become pregnant. If it has a right to life, from conception on (just as you claim applies to all other cases of conception), then due to its inherent dependency upon the woman, the woman must provide for it, protecting it's right to life (just as with the case of all other pregnancies, given your view). To claim that a woman has the right to abort such a "human being" in "self-defense" is to say that she has the right to violate the rights of someone who is not violating her rights, again, given your view that prior to birth there exist an individual human being with a right to life.

Or is it your view that an individual conceived by rape has no right to life?

Since you make no distinction between the pre-born and the born with respect to rights, then if an individual conceived via rape has no right to life, if that person can be murdered (killed in "self-defense") when they haven't violated anyone's rights simply because it was conceived in rape, then it can be murdered at anytime by anyone. Afterall, such a person has no right to life.

Or, is it your view that at some point beyond conception a person conceived via rape would have a right to life?

If that's the case, then at what point? Remember, you make no distinction with respect to individual rights and any stage of development, from conception on.

no, because if the woman dies, so does the foetus in all cases. if the foetus was able to survive, it would be possible to perform a c-section and get the baby out.

The point is that from conception on, at least til birth, if not beyond, you view women (and men) as rightless beast of procreation, subordinate to the "rights" of the unborn. Of course, you'll protest, saying that they do have rights, but also that the unborn have rights -- again, this follows from your view that rights are or can be in conflict.

Given your view that rights can be in conflict, that both the woman and the unborn have the right to life, someone's rights have to be subordinated to the "rights" of the other, either the woman's to the unborn's, or the unborn's to the woman. Rights that trump other rights are a contradiction. Rights that are subordinated to other rights are a contradiction. If "rights" are trumpted by other rights, if "rights" are subordinated to other rights, those "rights" do not exist, they are not rights at all.

life in jail for the doctor and the mother, the same as for any premeditated murder.

It is your own rights that you are renouncing.

I don't see how this is consistent with our legal system.

It's not currently consistent with out legal system that abortions are held to be murder and punished by life in prison, yet you are arguing to change that.

Why let consistency with out legal system stop you?

It's a very common view, and reasonable to assume it is one which you hold as well, that abortion, that the great number of abortions in the U.S. (as well as the rest of the world) is comparible to the Nazi holocaust, the mass murder of innocent human beings. Surely, holding such a view, you would be in favor of the harshest of punishments. Obvioulsy so if you're in favor of life imprisonment for abortion. Since you hold that abortion is murder, perhaps the most vicious form of murder, one would think you'd be in favor of using such a punishment, but perhaps you think that life in prison is more "civilized."

so at what point does one become human then...?

The unborn, at every stage of development is human. It's a fertilized human egg, a human zygote, a human fetus, etc. But it's not an individual human being until it has been born. At that point, even though it doesn't have the rights of an adult human being, it has a right to life.

because eggs and sperm are not human, they contain half of the genetic material that, in conjunction with the other half, is capable of creating human life. so spermacide is not murder, because sperm is not a developmental stage of human life. and the pill just prevents ovulation, it doesn't harm the egg.

The eggs and sperm are in fact human; they are human eggs and human sperm. And they are alive; human life. No, they're not individual human beings, but neither is the fertilized egg, the zygote, the fetus, etc.

it is absurd to say that it is not human life. it is one of the first stages of human development, subsequent stages will be newborn, infant, child, pre-adolescent, adolescent, adult, senior etc... if it is not human, what kind of life is it?

I am getting tired of asking this question, but here we go again. at what point does one become "human" in your eyes?

I really don't have the time or energy to bother answering any more posts that fail to address this question.

 Again, it's "human" all along the way, from egg and sperm to fertilized egg to zygote to fetus to birth to childhood to adolesence to adulthood to death. But it's not an individual human being until it's born; then it becomes a seperate biological individual human being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am getting tired of asking this question, but here we go again. at what point does one become "human" in your eyes?

It is "human" at all times, just like a toe nail is. The question has been answered a million times in this thread, always the same way.

It becomes an individual when it exists individually, outside the mother.

life in jail for the doctor and the mother, the same as for any premeditated murder.

You are putting the carriage ahead of the horse: it is not metaphysically given that whatever we feel like calling "murder" should be punished by whatever "the government" is, with life in prison.

Define murder, define government, and then tell us why an act of murder should be punished by an entity called government. (as you defined it)

Without that, it makes no sense to talk about "murder" and "punishment".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As soon as one becomes both rational and volitional, so actually much later than birth. However, that point varies from individual to individual, so it is more practical to assume one becomes human at birth.

thank you for admitting that you have selected an arbitrary point for the sake of convenience.

however, you should be aware that a baby can survive as an independent being after around 21 weeks, maybe earlier, maybe later - it depends on the child. should the mother be forced to have a c-section/induced birth at this point if she no longer wants to carry on with the pregnancy?

Why then? Because after birth, the baby exists as an independent being. It still needs to be provided for, but after birth anyone can do that. It is no longer dependent on one single person who would have to be enslaved were she unwilling to share her body with it. Birth is the moment when volunteers can take over.

firstly, the woman is not "enslaved," she willingly took part in the acts that created the child - why do you ignore that?

secondly, what if there are no volunteers? is the mother not then obligated to care for the child she created?

thirdly, as babies can survive after around 21 weeks, should the mother be forced to have a c-section/induced birth and let volunteers look after the child?

Is that also your proposed punishment for IVF, in which only a few fertilized eggs are implanted and the rest are discarded?

yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

should the mother be forced to have a c-section/induced birth at this point if she no longer wants to carry on with the pregnancy?

"I wish you would read up on at least some of these questions yourself. The government's only job is to protect individual rights. This is the relevant Objectivist position on objective, individual rights:

"Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right."

"Since only an individual man can possess rights, the expression “individual rights” is a redundancy (which one has to use for purposes of clarification in today’s intellectual chaos)." (Ayn Rand- The Virtue of Selfishness)

The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others."(Ayn Rand-Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal)

"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)." (Ayn Rand, The Objectivist)

If you understand Ayn Rand's position on individual rights, you understand what the government, in her view and ours, should or shouldn't do in any given situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thank you for admitting that you have selected an arbitrary point for the sake of convenience.

There is nothing arbitrary about that. A human is an individual. That is man's nature. Man does not exist as a part of another human. A being that exists as part of another being is therefore not human. It may become human when it is no longer part of another organism, but a potential is not an actual.

Maybe I took your question ("when does one become human?") too literally, I apologize for that. To be fully human means being volitional and having a rational faculty. However, as both you and I have pointed out, this is difficult to ascertain. Therefore, protection by the law must start when we can no longer be certain that a being is not human, i.e. birth.

firstly, the woman is not "enslaved," she willingly took part in the acts that created the child - why do you ignore that?

Because you have yet to show why a woman has any obligation to a life she accidentally created. Yes, she knew that this might happen. So what? Why does that necessarily mean she has to carry it to term? There is no way that any action can form a contract with a being that does not exist during the time the action takes place.

Keep in mind that to cause harm to an existing life (one with actual rights) is something entirely different from creating a new life (even one with the potential to have rights). Surely you don't really think that making babies is the same as shooting your neighbor in the leg? If you do, I hope that you don't have kids, for your neighbor's sake. :smartass:

secondly, what if there are no volunteers? is the mother not then obligated to care for the child she created?

A mother is obligated to care for her child if she chooses to give birth to it and does not give it up for adoption, i.e. if she volunteers.

Would you let a child starve to death because its mother is unwilling to care for it? If not, problem solved. If yes, why should any other non-volunteer take care of it?

thirdly, as babies can survive after around 21 weeks, should the mother be forced to have a c-section/induced birth and let volunteers look after the child?

The woman (and anyone else) should be free to pursue her rational self-interest. That means she mustn't be forced to have a C-section and she mustn't be forced to carry to term. Viability is irrelevant. That a being could live on its own does not constitute a right to do so at the cost of others. If a fetus needs the woman to undergo a C-section or continued gestation in order to live, and she is unwilling, the fetus has no right to initiate force against the woman - and neither do you.

yes

Ah, there's the problem: If you really think that a single-cell organism could possibly have rights, that suggests that your concept of rights is either a floating abstraction or based on mysticism. (Not sure if there's really a distinction between the two.)

Edited by Randroid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two points I've not seen mentioned -

1) how to tell the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion...

2)

however, you should be aware that a baby can survive as an independent being after around 21 weeks, maybe earlier, maybe later - it depends on the child. should the mother be forced to have a c-section/induced birth at this point if she no longer wants to carry on with the pregnancy?
noting that the second part contradicts the first... to claim that artificially inducing birth [creating life, actually, by artificial means] means that the fetus was 'viable' is a falsity - if the fetus was miscarried at that time, it would NOT be viable, naturally, and only would possibly become so under artificial means...

so, in effect, you are creating an artificial ethics, not a natural one - a subjective one based on technological situations, not an objective one of the natural world... which, further, would mean different 'standards' depending where on the world ye happen to be at the time...

Edited by anonrobt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

While I can get the premises for the O'ist position on abortion (inasmuch as they ARE premises rather than snarling assertions) I'm still disaffected by what I perceive to be a strong streak of misanthropy in the pro-choice movement that could easily slide into tolerance of infanticide (Obama is a perfect example). Also, I've often seen pro-choicers employ the "Malevolent Universe" premise in their arguments; that simply bringing forth life into this 'cruel' world is an act of child abuse.

Edited by Mister A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's consistency that's the dealmaker for me. A statist would have no concern for womens rights other than to agitate the collective persecution complex of his constituents.

A statist who has a problem with anti abortion laws is not a statist at all, in that regard. He is an advocate of freedom (as many liberals are on the issue), and he has to appeal to the masses who's freedom is being taken away.

As for agitating "the collective persecution complex" , there's no such thing. Each individual has their own psychology and complexes, but in this case, it's not even a complex: anti-abortion laws are a form of persecution that people recognize perfectly consciously.

I'm still disaffected by what I perceive to be a strong streak of misanthropy in the pro-choice movement that could easily slide into tolerance of infanticide (Obama is a perfect example).

The misantropy is far more accentuated in the religious, anti-choice movement. Obviously. (they're the ones trying to deny women a right, in the name of a superhuman, extremely malicious imaginary entity, not the pro choice people)

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for that, I should have provided more details, I apologize. I meant Euthanasia in the sense that someone is on life support, is completely unconscious, and is not "volitional." Would it be moral for whomever was in charge of this type of thing, a family member most likely, to allow a doctor to "pull the plug"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think so. My husband and I just had our wills, medical directives, etc., drawn up. If euthanasia were legal, I certainly would've given him the right to order it in certain circumstances. (For example, living in constant, untreatable pain, certain chronic illnesses, etc.)

And for whatever it's worth, it is legal to "pull the plug." It's not currently legal to give someone an overdose or poison them, etc., in order to put them out of their misery, which is what euthanasia is. I find both perfectly moral. I hope I get to go as peacefully as some of my pets have gone.

Edited by K-Mac
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...