Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Abortion

Rate this topic


semm

Recommended Posts

The last two posts do not address the OP at all and so I think this thread is the wrong place for them. They belong in the abortion thread here , as does my reply.

What many fail to acknowledge is that her stance DID BECOME MODIFIED CONTEXTUALLY.

Ayn Rand had questions about when life begins and other technicalities but as far as I know she never changed her position on which entities possessed Rights, nor on the absolute right of a woman to choose to have an abortion.

It sounds as though you are fully comfortable with a woman aborting a fetus or embryo within the first two trimesters and that you are less comfortable with her aborting in the last trimester. Further it sounds like your position is that women have the right to abortion, even in the third trimester. If this is your position then it is fully consistent with Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

". . . the later stages of a pregnancy." I truly think that with what we now know about the growth of a human inside its Mother, that Rand would hold a closer proximity to the position of Roger Bissell.

One may argue that the use of the phrase "one may argue" implies that the writer disagrees mildly with the claim in question. One may also argue that the use of the phrase implies that the writer agrees mildly with the claim in question, however this is a less tenable interpretation, unless one presents other evidence from the context.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will begin with a joke, definitely not aimed at Marc who has correctly identified and verified my argument. Objectivist Peter Reidy, author of “Wright and Rand” once wrote on the defunct site OWL on the thread “’Child’s Rights”:

The denial that "the mind is tabula rasa at birth" is an interesting locution. It leaves open the possibility that it becomes so decades later. We see evidence for this every day.

Marc K wrote:

Ayn Rand had questions about when life begins and other technicalities but as far as I know she never changed her position on which entities possessed Rights, nor on the absolute right of a woman to choose to have an abortion.

It sounds as though you are fully comfortable with a woman aborting a fetus or embryo within the first two trimesters and that you are less comfortable with her aborting in the last trimester. Further it sounds like your position is that women have the right to abortion, even in the third trimester. If this is your position then it is fully consistent with Objectivism.

I am NOT fully comfortable with the moral (and now legal issue) of *abortion* Marc. It is always better “to err on the side of life.” I generally agree with what you said.

Rand showed some evolution contextually based upon the medical science available at that time, but never revised her official position. In "The Comprachicos," Rand said:

At birth, a child's mind is tabula rasa; he has the potential of awareness -- the mechanism of a human consciousness -- but no content. Speaking metaphorically, he has a camera with an extremely sensitive unexposed film (his conscious mind), and an extremely complex computer waiting to be programmed (his subconscious). Both are blank. He knows nothing of the external world.

Science advanced in the late 1970’s and we now that the baby is not a blank slate. When a baby is inside its mother's womb, the baby is already in the world. The womb is not like a sensory deprivation tank. Light and sound enter. The Baby’s neurons are firing.

In The Secret Life of the Unborn Child, by Thomas Verney, M.D., he writes

. . . . from the sixth month of intrauterine life (and sometimes even earlier) the unborn child is a feeling, experiencing, remembering being who responds to and is deeply influenced by his environment.

One case study mentioned in that book cites:

A woman plays a cello piece often during her pregnancy; in later life her child knows the score of that piece by heart before he ever plays it.

In other words if you hum a bit of the melody, the child who frequently experienced that music in the womb can hum the rest of the bar of music FROM MEMORY. Weird!

Canadian Ellen Moore who I deeply respect used to teach courses from NBI and continued teaching Objectivism into the 1990’s had an opinion on this. Long time Objectivist, Ellen Moore, now deceased wrote:

. . . . The thing is, it never occurred to me that knowledgeable Objectivists took literally the idea of "tabula rasa". It is a metaphor, and at the very least an inaccurate simile. The mind is not a "slate", and I know of no evidence that the neurons in the newborn brain are "blank". There is much misunderstanding in taking such a literal approach, and I do not think Objectivism is at fault for causing it. You know, " using common sense" is a good place to start. Identification of the structure and content in the neurons of the newborn brain is a topic for scientific research. I would not begin to hypothesize about what I do not know. I too have read texts on developmental psychology about newborns. Normal neonates are perceptually capable, i.e., their sensory organs, nervous system, and brain are working as their identity dictates . . . . According to Objectivism, metaphysically, a human consciousness's actions are volitional: meaning that its actions of awareness can be initiated, directed, and sustained by the conscious organism . . . . I do not think that Rand went beyond the claim of scientific information available as it was in her lifetime. What she did go beyond in metaphysics was to identify axioms, and an objective theory of volitional consciousness. In epistemology she offered an objective theory of concept formation. As a philosopher, that was her fundamental contribution to Philosophy; followed by hierarchical order of principles in ethics and politics.

The issue of when a baby in the womb is a “person” is a separate rights issue that is being addressed by Doctor’s ethics committees and the Supreme Court. A caesarian section or induced labor is one way to think of a non - lethal semi-abortion procedure. The baby is born before the end of its gestation period but has the brain wave patterns of a freely born baby and is viable outside the mother’s womb. It should be considered to have “the rights of a person.”

Should an aborted baby born before the end of its gestation period but that has the brain wave patterns of a freely born baby and is viable outside the mother’s womb have “the rights of a person,” according to the official Objectivist stance? This is a moral and legal ethics issue and not a religious point of view. Yes it should.

Where does an ethics of abortion and infanticide lead? President Obama sanctions partial birth abortion, and condones the killing of the baby before, during and after the abortion procedure. He agrees that a woman having an abortion has a right to a dead baby and no crime is being committed if the doctor kills a baby that has survived the abortion procedure and can live outside the mother’s womb. The State in his opinion has a right to give its sanction to a doctor, to kill a viable but aborted baby. No murder is being committed. The intent of the procedure defines and legalizes the outcome of death, not birth.

Does his “legal” attitude towards the newly born tell us about President Obama’s respect for the rights of people already born? Does he think “The State” has a right to abrogate the freedom of the people, if he as the Head of State, deems it necessary? Of course he does. His intrusion into the rights of the ‘aborted and newly born’ extends to his attitude towards the entire freely born and adult population of the United States. It is logical to reason that this is an extension of his socialist and totalitarian beliefs.

With the above as background I would like my readers to ponder this. What is more important than Marc’s statement, “Your theory does not contradict Objectivism?”

The answer is, “Your theory is true.”

Therefore we could say that in the context of today’s knowledge one could truthfully state my theory should be an extension of Objectivism. Ayn Rand is no longer with us, but she never wanted to “rest in peace.” We are her legacy. Fight for the advancement of Objectivism.

Should a contextually true “change” be printed in the next edition of the Lexicon? I don’t know. That is Binswanger’s job. He could author a new book titled “The Objectivist Lexicon, Based on the Philosophy of Ayn Rand ( or OLBPAR : o ) As more knowledge is gained other contextual changes could be made.

I will say, “Roger Bissell’s theory on the attributes of a human in the womb is true.” Good work, Roger!”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Edited by Peter Taylor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am NOT fully comfortable with the moral (and now legal issue) of *abortion* Marc. It is always better “to err on the side of life.”

No, it's not. Especially when that "error" causes one to trample others' freedom. Quite the opposite, the first reflex should always be minding one's own business, and interfering with others only when entirely certain that no errors have been made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am NOT fully comfortable with the moral (and now legal issue) of *abortion* Marc. It is always better “to err on the side of life.” I generally agree with what you said.

Your writing is very confusing. In the first sentence here you are disagreeing with me and in the last sentence you say you agree with me. I have no idea what you are agreeing with but after reading your last post it is clear that we do not agree.

Just to be crystal clear: my position is the same as Ayn Rand's, namely, that only actual human beings have Rights and a woman has an absolute right to determine what happens to her body including whether to have an abortion or not. My argument for this position can be found throughout the thread, in particular on page 43. The issue of "viability" is addressed there and why it is not a proper standard for personhood.

Now, the reasons I took your position to be:

It sounds as though you are fully comfortable with a woman aborting a fetus or embryo within the first two trimesters and that you are less comfortable with her aborting in the last trimester. Further it sounds like your position is that women have the right to abortion, even in the third trimester.

are because you never really argue against abortion in the first two trimesters and because of this statement of yours:

It is a tough decision but should be between a woman and her doctor.

So the fact that you don't argue against abortion in the first two trimesters indicates to me that you would allow it, and the fact that you say the "decision should be between a woman and her doctor" indicates to me that even though you disagree with late term abortions you would allow them. I guess I was wrong about your position.

And to provide a little context: 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester, most of the rest occur in the second trimester, less than 1% occur in the third trimester and most of those are given to women whose life is in danger because of the pregnancy. So you seem to arguing against all abortions because you find a fraction of a percent of them to be distasteful.

Are you willing to outlaw a woman aborting an undifferentiated clump of cells because a very few women act irrationally? By this same logic would you outlaw drinking because some people drink and drive? Do you know what happened to millions of women before abortion was legal?

Where does an ethics of abortion and infanticide lead? President Obama sanctions partial birth abortion, and condones the killing of the baby before, during and after the abortion procedure. He agrees that a woman having an abortion has a right to a dead baby and no crime is being committed if the doctor kills a baby that has survived the abortion procedure and can live outside the mother’s womb. The State in his opinion has a right to give its sanction to a doctor, to kill a viable but aborted baby. No murder is being committed. The intent of the procedure defines and legalizes the outcome of death, not birth.

Does his “legal” attitude towards the newly born tell us about President Obama’s respect for the rights of people already born? Does he think “The State” has a right to abrogate the freedom of the people, if he as the Head of State, deems it necessary? Of course he does. His intrusion into the rights of the ‘aborted and newly born’ extends to his attitude towards the entire freely born and adult population of the United States. It is logical to reason that this is an extension of his socialist and totalitarian beliefs.

This whole diatribe is really insulting because, while you are aiming it at President Obama, by extension it is aimed at anybody who logically maintains the same position as Obama on the issue of abortion. So by extension you are calling me an infanticidal maniac and I don't appreciate it. I would turn the issue around on you and ask: Are you for abrogating the rights of pregnant women? Are you for forced surgery to remove viable fetuses? Are you for forcing women to become human incubators against their will? Are you for sacrificing the Rights of actual human beings to potential human beings?

With the above as background I would like my readers to ponder this. What is more important than Marc’s statement, “Your theory does not contradict Objectivism?”

This is very dishonest of you to manipulate my words and pretend that they support your argument when they clearly do not, as you acknowledged earlier. There is no way to construe what I said to mean the above. Here is what I actually said:

It sounds as though you are fully comfortable with a woman aborting a fetus or embryo within the first two trimesters and that you are less comfortable with her aborting in the last trimester. Further it sounds like your position is that women have the right to abortion, even in the third trimester. If this is your position then it is fully consistent with Objectivism.

I added emphasis to the last sentence to highlight the if/then form of the statement. So IF the preceding sentences had accurately described your position, THEN it would be consistent with Objectivism. But, as you already acknowledged, the preceding sentences did NOT describe your position, from that and your subsequent post it is clear that your position is NOT consistent with Objectivism.

Therefore we could say that in the context of today’s knowledge one could truthfully state my theory should be an extension of Objectivism.

Objectivism is one thing and it is one thing in particular, it is: Ayn Rand's Philosophy. Ayn Rand is dead and so her Philosophy will stay that one thing and not be extended. If you wish to argue the opposite, then search for the phrase "closed system" and you will find several threads on the subject.

And I don't see how you can hold the exact opposite of what Ayn Rand did, as you acknowledge here,:

Rand [...] never revised her official position.

and then pretend that that position could be part of Objectivism, that is absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not surprising to me that Peter Taylor, who holds that he has a "right to a view" with respect to property, a "right" that enables him to violate the rights of other property owners, also holds that he has a "right" to the lives of women, a "right" that enables him to violate their rights. Nor is it surprising that he is dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And speaking of Peter Taylor's so-called "right to a view":

"Chipotle loses disabled-access case":

"(04-18) 17:25 PDT WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court turned away an appeal by Chipotle Mexican Grill on Monday and left intact a federal appeals court ruling in San Francisco that said a nearly 4-foot barrier in a waiting line denied wheelchair users the right to see the food they were ordering."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marc wrote:

Just to be crystal clear: my position is the same as Ayn Rand's, namely, that only actual human beings have Rights and a woman has an absolute right to determine what happens to her body including whether to have an abortion or not. My argument for this position can be found throughout the thread, in particular on page 43. The issue of "viability" is addressed there and why it is not a proper standard for personhood.

I went back to page 43 and looked. There are some interesting things you have said. I will just write about one. Sorry if this has been said by someone else, but this thread is too Huge to read in one day!

On page 43 you wrote:

I suggest there is an exact time which is implied by definition of "human being".

I agree with the above . . . I think . . . but in your latest letter you call a fetus a “potential human being,” which is not scientifically precise. We are at odds over terminology and a wrinkle in Randian philosophy. Let us clear up one point. When the sperm and egg unite what is *created* is a human being - at that stage of development. A day later it is a one day old human being. There is a continuity of existence from that first unification of human sperm and egg. It never ceases to biologically be a human until death and then it is a dead human being.

My terminology, which I maintain is more scientific, is that a normal human while it exists in the womb, is always a *potential person,* no matter its state of development. I think that is what we are discussing. When is a baby a *person*? When is a human a person possessing rights? I see a modification in Ayn Rand’s stance as contextual knowledge was gained during her lifetime modifying the instant that *potential* becomes *rights bearing*.

I have looked and looked for the source of one of my semi quotes but I cannot find it, I must have gotten it from correspondence from another Objectivist. I will repeat it from memory. Briefly, the story goes that a “mature Ayn Rand” was kind of ambushed and asked some quick questions by a big fan, (it may have been Doris Gordon from “Libertarians for Life.” Imagine sitting outside her apartment hour after hour waiting for Ayn Rand to emerge!)

One of the questions asked was does a baby one minute before birth have the rights of a person? And Ayn Rand said yes. The second question was what if a mother who is aborting her baby, and during the procedure, the baby happens to be delivered alive and viable. Does the aborting mother have a right to a dead baby? And Ayn Rand is reported to have said No she does not have that right. I won’t dignify this with quotes but I think it could be true. Regardless of its veracity, if you look at the Lexicon you will see an evolution of thought in Ayn Rand.

Should an aborted baby excised before the end of its gestation period but that has the brain wave patterns of a freely born baby, and is viable outside the mother’s womb have “the rights of a person?” Should a delivering / aborting doctor have the right to kill the baby? According to your stance which you say is also the official Objectivist stance, you say yes. Marc, in many states and eventually in all our states that will be considered murder.

To reiterate, I maintain that the moment a baby becomes conscious is the moment that it becomes a person. From that first moment onward, sensations and perceptions in and out of the womb are experienced, memories are stored, and a unique BRAIN is in existence within its mother.

THIS NEW PERSON HAS AN IDENTITY THAT WILL REMAIN THE SAME THROUGHOUT ITS LIFE. It’s rights are modified at birth. Its rights that were secondary to its mothers because it was dependent upon her for its existence, now change to equal to the mothers. This normal baby is thinking as evidenced by the brain wave patterns alpha, delta and theta that are also found in thinking adults.

A good measure of Aristotle’s and Rand’s law of identity is that they are based on the facts of reality as we observe them. After consciousness a fetus becomes a *person*. There are things in the universe that a person in the womb cannot know because it is not yet aware of them. For millennia humans did not know about the dark side of the moon. That does not affect my argument. Omniscience is not required of a *person*. Conceptual thinking is not required for a human child to be granted rights.

Marc, I agree that a mother’s rights ALWAYS trump the unborn baby’s rights but at some point there is a person on board, and an abortion at that point, without JUST CAUSE would be similar to an airline pilot jettisoning a stowaway.

The official Objectivist stance is over thirty years old and you maintain:

Ayn Rand is dead and so her Philosophy will stay that one thing and not be extended.

I DO SEE YOUR POINT, but I must also logically disagree on a technicality. Why has ARI issued a book on induction as an advancement of Objectivism, Ayn Rand’s philosophy? When OPAR was issued some complained that Doctor Peikoff had changed Rand’s thinking, YET, OPAR still stands as Her Philosophy.

That is not my disagreement with you. I am NOT suggesting big “O” Objectivism as written by Ayn Rand should be edited. I have heard the arguments about calling modern day contextual Objectivism, little o’ism, or Independent objectivism, etc., to reflect the facts as we NOW know them to be. That is the philosophy I am trying to change, not what Rand wrote. As more facts are gathered advanced conclusions can change, though not the axioms.

You wrote:

, , , pretend that that position could be part of Objectivism, that is absurd.

I am not saying we change the wonderful writings of Ayn Rand. I am not trying to be snarky at your attitude, when I say CHANGE NOTHING in her writings, or the Bible or any other sacred text, because I think of Ayn Rand’s writings that way.

I do not want any modern guardian of the Politically Correct to change her writings, editing out smoking, or something else deemed not quite right by today’s standards. My jest about Mr Binswanger creating an Objectivist Lexicon based on the Philosophy of Ayn Rand and then modifying its stance on abortion, will occur.

It will occur.

Life marches on. Science marches on. Philosophy marches on. More knowledge is acquired at an ever accelerating rate.

Rand is our heritage. She demanded that we think for ourselves. I am impressed with your intellect, Marc, which is why you have gotten such a (platonically : o ) passionate response.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Edited by Peter Taylor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand’s official definition of a woman’s right to an abortion is a side issue of her concept *Man’s Rights*. This side issue was born of the radical sixties and before that, the rise of Feminism, and horror stories of women who had “illegal” back alley abortions. Two biographers “have some evidence” that Ayn Rand had an abortion. This information came from a United States relative of Miss Rands.

She was friends with Rose Wilder Lane, daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder who wrote the beloved "Little House on the Prairie" children's books, Isabel Paterson, author of “The God of the Machine,” and Edith Efron, author of “The Feminine Mystique. They were feminists all.

Abortion is a unique political and medical issue because Christian religion had banished this medical procedure from polite, legal society, and criminalized the woman and the doctor who performed the abortion. That was a horrible injustice. History can provide a backdrop to what was written and thought at that time.

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

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).

I agree that any obligation to a baby inside the womb is always subordinate to the Mother’s rights even after the appearance of consciousness in the baby. Rand’s concept of not-yet-living (or the unborn) is in error. It is not scientifically valid. A LIVING human whatever its stage of existence is still living inside the mother, even if it is unborn. Separation from a place does not change a potential to an actual.

What Ayn Rand is stating is a side issue written years ago. Does it somehow change reality? Is there a magical change in a child before and after birth based on the fact that it is beholden upon its mother for life itself? And this transformation occurs because of the thought and words that someone (Ayn Rand) wrote who was uninvolved in the pregnancy or birth?

That would be a logical fallacy.

A (residing within the being of Y at one day of existence) is A

A (residing within Y at six months of existence) is A

A (residing within Y at nine months of existence) is A

A (residing outside of Y) is Non A?

No. A baby is always A baby. Its nature does not change. How one views a baby as rights bearing or not does not change its nature.

Based upon its nature it is always a human being, but before the ignition of that special spark of consciousness, it is still a human, and deserving of all the consideration we give a human, but not say, any other animal’s embryos, but the human embryo is still not yet a *person*.

So when are rights conferred? After it becomes separate from its mother’s body? Ayn Rand says “Yes.” I say, “No.” (Is that the cavalry I hear?)

It’s nature changes it to a *person* when it begins thinking like a person, and not when it is no longer needy and inside the womb. Of course a BORN baby and older child are separate from their mother but still needy. Neediness does not affect the imputation of rights to a thinking child inside the womb nor the older but separate, thinking, rights bearing child, outside the womb.

This argument is the law in several states and will undoubtedly make it to the Supreme Court making it the law of the land.

Roe v. Wade will not be overturned. It should not be overturned. The battle should be to keep Roe v. Wade as law but with one huge modification. I will let you think about it. As angry as you may or may not be, think about it. You know the right answer. Discover it through reason not recitation. Discover it via a healthy psycho-epistemology. THAT is the Objectivist way.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter, there is not a single thing you have said that has not been said about 20 times (major underestimate) in this very thread. Well the only thing new (unless I missed it) is the statement that Rand had an abortion. What of it? Why do you simply state it and leave it at that? What implication would you have people draw? After all, you did not ramble on about how Ayn Rand had a cough or the measles or broke her leg one time... so of what more relevance would it be if she had an abortion?

Please do not post to this thread until you answer this question succinctly, without your usual rambling. I will probably delete any other answer you post here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will let you think about it. As angry as you may or may not be, think about it. You know the right answer. Discover it through reason not recitation. Discover it via a healthy psycho-epistemology. THAT is the Objectivist way.

You REALLY should consider dropping this dramatic insulting manner you take. Many people on this board have already thought about this without your permission. They did so with a "healthy psycho-epistemology", and with reason not recitation. They do know the right answer, and it is not your answer.

For the love of reason, stop this BS "you haven't really thought about it" line you like to pursue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was told this by a moderator:

Please do not post to this thread until you answer this question succinctly, without your usual rambling. I will probably delete any other answer you post here.

It is sufficient if the readers just stop reading my posts, there is no reason . . .

Ah what the hell. I may check back at a later date to see if this has become a forum for rational discourse, that would welcome my support. I withdraw mine.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expletive deleted. Son, could you dumb that down a little more? You are obviously refusing to think beyond your catechism of stock Randian phrases.

Ah what the hell. I may check back at a later date to see if this has become a forum for rational discourse, that would welcome my support. I withdraw mine.

Expletive deleted.

Adios dad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trebor wrote:

Expletive deleted.

Adios dad!

I signed out of receiving notices so I was surprised to get the above message.

Now that is kind of honest exchange I like! I looked at Betsy's site and it looked interesting but also may not be a place I could post without worrying : o ) Hmmm? Where will I take my money?

Go see the movie, AS! I want a part two.

Adios son.

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might answer some of the rest of your posts if you first explain to me how this:

Marc, I agree that a mother’s rights ALWAYS trump the unborn baby’s rights [...]

and this:

I agree that any obligation to a baby inside the womb is always subordinate to the Mother’s rights even after the appearance of consciousness in the baby.

are not a complete concession on the issue. According to you: a woman's right to an abortion ALWAYS trumps any so called "rights of the unborn baby". End of discussion, right?

(I mean, I think you have some explaining to do about your conception of Rights and how, according to you, they sometimes come into conflict). But according to the above: a woman has an absolute right to abort any fetus, even one that according to you is conscious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah what the hell. I may check back at a later date to see if this has become a forum for rational discourse, that would welcome my support. I withdraw mine.

Well, it was before you got here. I'm guessing it will be when you leave.

I looked at Betsy's site and it looked interesting but also may not be a place I could post without worrying

Is it that hard for you to not be condescending and insulting? You must be wearing out your welcome all over town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Thread revival!

I have a dilemma:

According to Leonard Peikoff, the essential issue on whether or not aboriton is acceptable is

A) a question of volitional consciousness

B) a question of physical independence

From what I understand of Peikoff's works, even if the conditions of A is satisfied on the part of the fetus, it still does not acquire rights until it satisfies the condition of B. Once it's born, it's no longer physically dependent (although it is psychologically dependent, but that's not the issue here).

What about conjoined twins? From what I know, it's not as if one is equally as dependent on the other as vice versa. Would one have the right to kill the other?

I am asking this, because I was confronted with these questions. I feel tempted to answer "Because conjoined twins have mutual dependence on each other, neither can claim the right to kill the other." But the person I'm arguing with brought up that one is less dependent on the other than vice versa

I also borrowed Peikoff's comparison to a person on medical support, and she argued that you should be allowed to take someone off medical support, if you're the one providing it, because you didn't put them in such a condition in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about conjoined twins? From what I know, it's not as if one is equally as dependent on the other as vice versa. Would one have the right to kill the other?

I am asking this, because I was confronted with these questions. I feel tempted to answer "Because conjoined twins have mutual dependence on each other, neither can claim the right to kill the other." But the person I'm arguing with brought up that one is less dependent on the other than vice versa

Dr. Peikoff addressed a related question in his podcast, Episode 80 -- September 20, 2009, which you may find helpful:

08:28: "Here's a question to which not only I have no answer, but nobody does: Ethics for siamese twins. And the question is, 'Suppose that one of them commits a felony, a capital crime, and one is absolutely innocent. What should the court's correct decision be? What about the issue of abortion, sex, ownership, suicide, etc., where the two have contradictory opinions?'"

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Evidently at least one senator in the Philippines thinks so. God save us from these crazy Christians.

I saw a doccie once in which a Vatican Cardinal or other high-up gave as rationale (for opposing abortion and contraception)

the Second Coming of Christ. I wish I'd recorded it. It all makes 'sense', now.

One thing about Catholics is that they try so hard to be consistent, until insanity.

No sperm to be wasted, "interfered with" - oh, but hang on! What about all those slower sperm that don't get to fertilize

the ovum, when one speedy fellow does? Save them, try again, until every single one is successful?

Equal rights for all spermatazoa, I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Equal rights for all spermatazoa, I say."

Say yes to Social Justice! The main thing is not to win but to participate. From the other hand, all spematozoids are equal, but some more equal than others. From the third hand, I wonder why a discussion about abortion conducted mainly by men? I'd like to know what women think about it, especially those who had it at least once?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you mean this thread, there are women among this slew of pages, just fewer due to the fact that this is an Objectivism board and males outnumber females among Objectivists. If you mean just the topic in here at the moment, it sounds more relevant to males actually anyway. It kind of amuses me actually that they finally found a way to condemn males for "abortion" too. I wonder though whether calling it "abortion" is just due to this guy not having perfected his English of if he really just does not know what an abortion actually is in any language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, I mean that abortion is a procedure which has everything to do with the woman's body and nothing with man's. My point is very simple-women have a right to decide what to do with their own bodies without any coercive interference from the state, usually dominated by men. The question about rights of fetus is irrelevant-it doesn't have any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you'll find plenty of agreement on this in the many pages in this thread, that's not a controversial stance for men or women to take here. You are preaching to the choir. If, on the other hand, you mean "the discussion" as in not this thread but debate over abortion in general, then I question if women are really notably under represented. I sure see plenty of women speaking any time I've come across a discussion of abortion. Maybe in discussions among government officials it is mostly men talking, but that's because the government just has more men, not that there's a bunch of women staying quiet. As for women who have had an abortion, if you mean any women and not that they specifically need to be Objectivist women, there's a whole website dedicated to women posting their stories about getting an abortion and how they don't regret it. I think it is imnotsorry.net .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, women don't regret abortion, but I'm quite sure they don't enjoy it. After all it's a painful, bloody and messy procedure. With today's plethora of available contraceptives, no woman should experience it.

Edited by Leonid
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...