Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Abortion

Rate this topic


semm

Recommended Posts

The reason why birth is the point at which the woman can not kill the baby, is because the baby is outside of her body. She has the option of either putting the kid up for adoption, and keeping it, but she can't kill the baby. If she killed the baby, it wouldn't be an act of self-defense since the baby is not in her body.

And nobody said she MUST take care of the child. She can put it up for adoption, or she can take care of it. Her responsibility as a parent only ends at putting the baby up for adoption

Edited by Black Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a contradiction that has yet to be addressed properly. The parent must take care of their child... after it is born. Why? How does that make sense?

Because, if they, the parents, especially the woman, choose to bring a child into existence, as an individual human being (which a fetus is not, but perhaps you have trouble understanding what an individual actual is), then they are responsible for their decision, the birth of a child, an individual human being which cannot sustain itself without the aid of its parents or someone else, someone competent to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why birth is the point at which the woman can not kill the baby, is because the baby is outside of her body.

Is her home not just as much hers as her body?

She has the option of either putting the kid up for adoption,

Would it then be immoral to demand that she use her resources to drop the baby off at an adoption center? Let's assume that either the hospital didn't have one or she had the baby in a rural setting.

If she killed the baby, it wouldn't be an act of self-defense since the baby is not in her body.

Then let's assume she just left it to die. Would that be morally acceptable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because, if they, the parents, especially the woman, choose to bring a child into existence, as an individual human being (which a fetus is not, but perhaps you have trouble understanding what an individual actual is), then they are responsible for their decision, the birth of a child, an individual human being which cannot sustain itself without the aid of its parents or someone else, someone competent to do so.

The child is "in existence as an individual human being" at conception.

As Rand herself pointed out (if memory serves), "individual human being" isn't what's being looked for.

Certainly, "personhood" is up for debate, and, I believe that is the sole determining factor in whether or not it's acceptable to kill a human (outside of self-defense).

Let's try and draw the line there, then, not at birth.

Edited by Minarchist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The right of a parent to stop caring for the well-being of their child.
You're presupposing an obligation to act. Start there.
More specifically, to kill their child.
In the case of aborting a fetus, there is no child to kill so we needn't look further into whether the mother has a right to act. Obviously she does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The child is "in existence as an individual human being" at conception.

As Rand herself pointed out (if memory serves), "individual human being" isn't what's being looked for.

Certainly, "personhood" is up for debate, and, I believe that is the sole determining factor in whether or not it's acceptable to kill a human (outside of self-defense).

Let's try and draw the line there, then, not at birth.

Your memory doesn't serve.

Your beliefs are not the issue, the facts are. There's no reason for "us" to draw the line on the basis of your beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is her home not just as much hers as her body?

I'm not sure what you're asking me.

Would it then be immoral to demand that she use her resources to drop the baby off at an adoption center? Let's assume that either the hospital didn't have one or she had the baby in a rural setting.

Nobody would demand anything. It would be moral on her part to drop the baby off. Benevolence is still a subcategory of rational self-interest

Then let's assume she just left it to die. Would that be morally acceptable?

Legally, probably. Morally, no. Legal and moral are two different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're presupposing an obligation to act.

That's right.

In another thread someone said something I agree with, something along the lines of: The parent is responsible for the well-being of the child because it's the parent that put them into existence; To do otherwise would be the same as sailing a person into the sea and abandoning them.

In the same thread, the same person stressed that abortion is a right up to birth.

It makes no sense to me.

there is no child to kill.

At some point, there is a child to kill. I was born over three months premature. Assuming I went on full-term, would it have been right for my mother to kill me at the six-month point, considering that I was clearly capable of surviving?

Another interesting question. My survival was expensive. Who has the right to demand that my parents have paid that cost? Would it have been morally acceptable for them to abandon me, and allow me to suffocate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a contradiction that has yet to be addressed properly.

But it has been addressed and you are not the first person to bring that up as a point of discussion. That is why I suggested reviewing the thread and searching other threads.

However, it appears you have folks willing to cover old ground again so far be it from me to stop them.

But, it has been "properly addressed" before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you're asking me.

That's the problem. It's a hard point to convey, and easy to misunderstand.

Nobody would demand anything. It would be moral on her part to drop the baby off. Benevolence is still a subcategory of rational self-interest.

Would a woman who abandoned her child to die be punished by the government, or no?

If not, that sounds like libertarian nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would a woman who abandoned her child to die be punished by the government, or no?

Choosing to bring a child into existence (giving birth to a child) creates moral and legal obligations on the mother, or parents, because she, or they, chose to bring it into existence, creating a responsibility to the child by her, or their, own actions. Given the nature of the child and her, or their, obligations, the child has a right to be provided for by her, or them, the parent(s). If the mother, or parents, do not want to keep and raise the child, they can still meet the requirements they have created by undertaking to have the child adopted by others who will provide for the child.

The proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, the rights of individual human beings. A child, as an individual human being, does have the right to life. If the mother, or parents, fail to meet the requirements of caring for the child, of course the government has an obligation to protect the rights of the child.

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Choosing to bring a child into existence (giving birth to a child) creates moral and legal obligations on the mother, or parents, because she, or they, chose to bring it into existence, creating a responsibility to the child by her, or their, own actions. Given the nature of the child and her, or their, obligations, the child has a right to be provided for by her, or them, the parents. If the mother, or parents, do not want to keep and raise the child, they can still meet the requirements they have created by undertaking to have the child adopted by others who will provide for the child. The proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, the rights of individual human beings. A child, as an individual human being, does have the right to life. If the mother, or parents, fail to meet the requirements of caring for the child, of course the government has an obligation to protect the rights of the child.

I agree.

Now, why does the obligation the take care of the child begin at birth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because at birth there is an actual human being, a biologically independent, individual human being. A pregnant woman is not two, or more, individuals. She is an individual human being who is pregnant. Her life (and her body obviously) is her own to control, by right.

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Individual human being.

Meaning what? That the human being is capable of taking care of itself?

That's nonsense. One way or another, the baby is dependent on another human being. In the most pertinent sense of the term "individual", a child cannot be such.

If your point is that, because the bodies are connected, one has the right to murder the other, does the same apply for conjoined twins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, so the moment she gives birth, she's responsible for the child? I'm confused.

Yes, when she (or they, the parents, assuming the the father has chosen to accept the obligations of parenthood) gives birth, there's a child as a result of her, or their, choice. Giving birth to a child creates a responsibility to care for the child. It exists due to her, or their, action and choice; therefore she, or they, are responsible for the consequence of their action and choice, a child's needs.

What's confusing about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For anyone interested in the Objectivist position with respect to abortion, here are a few online sources:

1. See the "Unofficial Index to Dr. Peikoff's Podcasts" here on this forum. If you select to "Print this topic" from the "Option" button on the upper right hand side of the thread, you can then search for "abortion" and listen to various comments that Dr. Peikoff has given in response to a few questions he has gotten on abortion.

2. See "Abortion" in the online Lexicon for some brief comments and leads to the articles where they originally appeared.

3. See Dr. Peikoff's comments on his site: "Abortion Rights are Pro - Life"

4. See the articles relating to abortion on the Capitalism Magazine web site.

5. See the results of searching the Objective Standard web site for abortion.

Before it's possible to understand individual rights as they relate to abortion and children, it helps to understand the meaning of individual rights as such. Miss Rand's article, "Man's Rights" may be helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not nonsense, it's an objective distinction. While attached to the mother is it unavoidably dependent upon her and her body's resources; her body over which she has full rights. When it is detached from her body, it is no longer dependent on anyone in particular, it is merely dependent on someone. If she has decided to go to the point at which the baby is born, then yes, she has an obligation to ensure that either she cares for the child or finds someone else who is willing. It is now a distinctly individual human being, one which she choose to get to the point of being a distinctly individual human being.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For anyone interested in the Objectivist position with respect to abortion, here are a few online sources:

I have been looking through a number of those. I understand the points being made. They don't address mine.

I'll keep looking, but I'm going to clearly state the issue I hold with the widely-accepted Objectivist view on abortion:

I believe that parents are responsible for the well-being of the persons they bring into the world. I don't believe that the barrier of personhood is breached upon birth, but upon a certain level of mental development. When in particular? I'm not sure, I'm merely stating the premise which I believe to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that parents are responsible for the well-being of the persons they bring into the world. I don't believe that the barrier of personhood is breached upon birth, but upon a certain level of mental development. When in particular? I'm not sure, I'm merely stating the premise which I believe to be true.

If you're looking for a cut off point regarding mental development, we could look at Piaget's theory. The sensori-motor stage begins at birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm trying to establish here is my premise, the one that you just quoted.

You have no premise, you say so explicitly:

When in particular? I'm not sure, I'm merely stating the premise which I believe to be true. [emphasis added]

So you think it's true but you're not sure?????

This puts you in a terrible position since, apparently, upon a premise you are unsure about, you are willing to abolish a woman's rights. Is this really the depth of your regard for the concept of rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no premise, you say so explicitly:

I stated my premise explicitly:

"I believe that parents are responsible for the well-being of the persons they bring into the world. I don't believe that the barrier of personhood is breached upon birth, but upon a certain level of mental development."

That's my premise.

When "personhood" is reached, I'm not quite sure. That doesn't discredit my premise.

I can do no more to make you understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can do no more to make you understand.

So the only thing you can do to help someone understand your premise is to state it and then state it again? No explanation is necessary? You are going to have a hard time here. Be that as it may ... let us examine your premise.

"I believe that parents are responsible for the well-being of the persons they bring into the world. I don't believe that the barrier of personhood is breached upon birth, but upon a certain level of mental development."

When "personhood" is reached, I'm not quite sure. That doesn't discredit my premise.

So, presumably if a thing is not a person it doesn't have rights, correct? And personhood is dependent upon some level of mental development ... what level we don't know.

OK, so as long as there is no brain, presumably, you would allow abortion, correct?

Also, since we don't know which level of mental development is required for personhood, it is possible that a child of 2 years old is not a person and therefore you would allow the murder of that child, correct?

So your position is somewhere in between allowing abortion and murder. I guess we really nailed that down.

We haven't even considered the rights of the woman yet and you are allowing for murder. Again, is this the depth of your respect for the concept of Rights?

Presumably you will come back and disallow murder but advocate for forcing the mother to carry every fetus to term and at that point you will have to explain what is your concept of Rights.

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...