Abortion

[Spiral Architect]

An important point in all of this is to consider the consequences of something you assert, or to paraphrase Rand – Take it serious and follow through on its implications. In this case, the idea is that a fetus at conception has rights as a human being. OK, let’s take that at face value – A fetus has human rights, which means in this context it has political rights which need to be protected. This leads to many consequences:

• Does this make a fetus a citizen of the United States?
  
• Does a fetus get a Social Security Card?
  
• Do parents have to name the fetus despite no identifiable sex so this human life can be registered for that SSC or other Government identification?
  
• Can a parent claim a fetus as a dependant upon their taxes?
  
• Does the US Census now have to count pregnant women as two people?
  
• If the mother’s life is threatened by some medical condition from the fetus, can the mother take criminal action against the fetus?
  
• Can the family make a civil suit against the fetus?
  
• Can the fetus file a civil lawsuit against the mother for drinking or smoking during the pregnancy?
  
• If I accidently kill a pregnant woman in a car crash will I be charged with two counts of manslaughter?
  
• If you say “no” to any of the above then are we giving fetuses special group rights that places them above normal individual rights?
  
• Since a women is now forced to care for the unborn citizen against her wishes, does this mean she has more rights before she is born than after she is born?
  
• Re-read that last one because there are some really scary consequences in it.
  

Do I need to continue?

[Hotu Matua]

Sorry, but abortion is almost always the moral choice for any woman who is having doubts that have come to that point.

Sorry, but "having doubts" is not enough as a parameter of rationality.

However, I share with you the view that, following the human benevolence premise, most women act rationally, pursuing their own rational interest, and those who choose abortion do it morally.

My contention here is that the right-based approach frequently bypasses a richer and more meaningful ethical discussion of each case.

[softwareNerd]

Sorry, but "having doubts" is not enough as a parameter of rationality

I have no idea what you mean. If one has such serious doubts about parenthood that one has terminated it on that basis, it's a pretty good bet you did the right thing.

[Hotu Matua]

Having doubts means you have conflicting premises that you have to check and re-check. It doen't mean that your "second thoughts" are always more rational than your "first thoughts"

A woman may be facing irrational fears , for example. She may lack enough information or context. She may have a distorted view of what her boyfriend or parents will think and do. She may not be aware of the full extent of her capabilities. She may need a second opinion from a doctor, if health issues are involved. She may need to make some adaptations to her lifestyle, without necessarily giving up her career.

As in any other major aspect of life, choices are sometimes though to make. Focus is sometimes hard to keep.

What is happening with current discussion about abortion in these threads?

By focusing on the rights issue, we are dropping or minimizing the discussion on the ethics of abortion as if any action, performed by any person for any purpose and by any means, would be moral as long as no rights are being violated.

The embryo has an identity. It is not a tapeworm. It is a pre-person.

A rational woman will recognize this, and factor this (i.e that the embryo is a pre-person, and not a tapeworm) into her calculations.

As I try to illustrate in my thread "THe Ethics of Poisoning My Cat and the Arbotion Dilemma", stepping on an ant doesn't have the same impact on my flourishing than poisoning my pet.

And certainly, getting rid of a tapeworm that dwells in my intestines doesn't have the same impact on my flourishing that getting rid of a pre-person that dwells on my uterus.

.

I still trust that most women do the right thing. I still trust that most of them are not morally suicidal. I still believe that most abortions are justified.

But I would suggest personal coaching when facing this choice, because abortion will not always be the right thing to do.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Hotu Matua

[softwareNerd]

What is happening with current discussion about abortion in these threads?

By focusing on the rights issue, we are dropping or minimizing the discussion on the ethics of abortion as if any action, performed by any person for any purpose and by any means, would be moral as long as no rights are being violated.

There's an element of truth here, but the criticism is not completely accurate. The biggest reason abortion is such a big issue is that the Christian right wants to roll back political rights. If you go over to Europe or even the third-world, you won't find abortion debated as much as in the U.S. when it comes to politics. So, the focus on the political aspect (i.e. whether it ought to be allowed) is definitely the bigger area of focus here.

However, people have tried to address the moral issue in many of these threads, and I find -- on balance -- that too many Objectivists seem to think there is often something immoral about abortion. If you read through threads, you will find a lot of people who think that think that someone who willingly has a choice and gets pregnant then has some responsibility toward the fetus.

None of my recent posts here have been about abortion in the abstract, but about actual abortions that actually take place, and about women who would have decided to abort, except that they don't because they think it is a moral issue.The vast majority of such women did not want to get pregnant in the first place. There are some who get pregnant and then find out something about the fetus or change their minds, but the vast majority did not want to get pregnant, but were hoping to get away with having sex without contraception. In this context, having made that mistake, when reality hits and they find themselves pregnant, suddenly deciding that they actually want the kid after all it typically the emotional decision. Any consideration a woman gives to ideas like 'this is a pre-human, not a tape worm" goes down an immoral path.

Edited April 8, 2012 by softwareNerd

[Reason_Being]

It is OK to kill a fetus because 'it is not a rational being'. This is a common Objectivist position, from what I have seen. I can't think of a worse reason. "I shot Bob", "Thats Illegal! Your going to jail!", "No, he was irrational", "Oh, thats OK then". Are we to have 'rationality boards', where Objectivists pass judgement at murder cases as to whether the victim was rational or not?

That is not the Objectivist position. The question is whether it has a rational faculty. A fetus has no rational faculty. A person who acts irrationally still has a rational faculty, and is still a human being and therefore possesses rights. A fetus is not a human being.

[Hotu Matua]

Any consideration a woman gives to ideas like 'this is a pre-human, not a tape worm" goes down an immoral path.

Any consideration a woman gives to ideas like "A is A" cannot possibly go down an immoral path. That's what reasoning is all about.

The embryo she is bearing is not a pre-whale, a pre-pig or a pre-acorn. It is what it is. It is one thing and not another thing. Careful consideration of abortion INCLUDES (though it is by no way limited to) clear identification of what is being killed or preserved, and how the choice of killing or preserving relates to the woman's hierachy of values.

Omitting that the embryo is a pre-person (as omitting many other aspects of the situation) would lead to an emotional, not rational decision making.

Now, concerning the "responsibility" issue that you mention, women are responsible towards themselves, towards their own flourishing, and that's what it's at stake. We are not talking about responsibilty towards an embryo. The question is whether, in certain circumtances, killing an embryo is contrary to woman's long-term interest.

.

[softwareNerd]

...and how the choice of killing or preserving relates to the woman's hierachy of values.

You're making this an optional decision, that may or may not fit with someone's hierarchy of values. I disagree. Of course people can have different hierarchies of value, but they cannot be arbitrary. They have to somehow tie back to (i.e. be concrete instances of) values that can be defended objectively. The claim that "these are my values" or "this is my personal value hierarchy" is not an ending point. It cannot be the ultimate justification for rational action.

[Hotu Matua]

The question is whether it has a rational faculty. A fetus has no rational faculty. A person who acts irrationally still has a rational faculty...

Let's define what faculty is.

Faculty is a power to do something. It derives from Latin "facere", "to make" or "to do".

If you can speak, you have the faculty of speech.

Now, a 6 month baby cannot speak. He, nevertheless, has the faculty of speech.

Whay are we so sure?

Because he has the hardware and, if given enough time, we will show us he speaks.

Our knowledge of the neurosciences involved does not let us predict with 100% of certainty that that specific baby will speak. Our knowledge of his future doesn't allow us to predict if he will be alive tomorrow. But, as a matter of dealing with concepts to live on this Earth, we can say that the baby has the faculty of speech.

Same applies to the rational faculty. A 2-year-old newborn cannot build concepts. Her knowedlge is at a perceptual stage. But she has the hardware and given enough time (say a month) some concepts, like "self" and "mother" will be well established. So we say that newborns have the faculty of thinking.

Has the fetus the day before is born a rational faculty?

I would say yes. She has the hardware and, given enough time, (one day more than the newborn we have just mentioned above) he will show us he can think conceptually.

Assigning the attribute "human" to an entity with "rational faculty" demands determining when the "hardware" is up and ready.

Now, there is ANOTHER way to interpret "faculty" and I can discuss it in another post.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Hotu Matua

[Hotu Matua]

You're making this an optional decision, that may or may not fit with someone's hierarchy of values. I disagree. Of course people can have different hierarchies of value, but they cannot be arbitrary. They have to somehow tie back to (i.e. be concrete instances of) values that can be defended objectively. The claim that "these are my values" or "this is my personal value hierarchy" is not an ending point. It cannot be the ultimate justification for rational action.

I agree with you, softwareNerd.

I should have written "how they relate to woman's circumstances and short and long term goals".

My mistake.

[Reason_Being]

Let's define what faculty is.

Faculty is a power to do something. It derives from Latin "facere", "to make" or "to do".

If you can speak, you have the faculty of speech.

Now, a 6 month baby cannot speak. He, nevertheless, has the faculty of speech.

Whay are we so sure?

Because he has the hardware and, if given enough time, we will show us he speaks.

Our knowledge of the neurosciences involved does not let us predict with 100% of certainty that that specific baby will speak. Our knowledge of his future doesn't allow us to predict if he will be alive tomorrow. But, as a matter of dealing with concepts to live on this Earth, we can say that the baby has the faculty of speech.

Same applies to the rational faculty. A 2-year-old newborn cannot build concepts. Her knowedlge is at a perceptual stage. But she has the hardware and given enough time (say a month) some concepts, like "self" and "mother" will be well established. So we say that newborns have the faculty of thinking.

Has the fetus the day before is born a rational faculty?

I would say yes. She has the hardware and, given enough time, (one day more than the newborn we have just mentioned above) he will show us he can think conceptually.

Assigning the attribute "human" to an entity with "rational faculty" demands determining when the "hardware" is up and ready.

Now, there is ANOTHER way to interpret "faculty" and I can discuss it in another post.

I was simply addressing tothemax's claim that what determines rights is the act of being rational. Rights are not determined by whether one acts rationally but rather whether a one is a human being (human beings are the only animals to possess a rational faculty). That is the only point I was making.

Your claim that a fetus has a rational faculty is unsubstantiated. And having the potential to be rational in the future is not what determines rights. A two year old baby isn't rational but we know that it is a human.

When it comes to the fetus, it not only does not have a rational faculty but it is also a physical parasite to the mother. It does not exist as its own person and lacks any of the distinguishing features of a human being.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Reason_Being

[Hotu Matua]

I was simply addressing tothemax's claim that what determines rights is the act of being rational. Rights are not determined by whether one acts rationally but rather whether a one is a human being (human beings are the only animals to possess a rational faculty). That is the only point I was making.

Your claim that a fetus has a rational faculty is unsubstantiated. And having the potential to be rational in the future is not what determines rights. A two year old baby isn't rational but we know that it is a human.

When it comes to the fetus, it not only does not have a rational faculty but it is also a physical parasite to the mother. It does not exist as its own person and lacks any of the distinguishing features of a human being.

I am claiming that the fetus the day before is born has the same hardware than the 2-day-old newborn has.

If by rational faculty we mean "the full hardware" or the "the full tabula" (from "tabula rasa"), why do you think that the fetus, one day before is born, lacks rational faculty?

Why do you think that my claim is unsubstantiated?

Regarding the parasite condition, that's another important issue, but let's go one step at a time.

My contention here is to define what rational faculty is.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Hotu Matua

[Leonid]

The fetus is a human being if and only if it can live separately from the mother's body. The timing of birth is irrelevant.

[moralist]

*** Mod's note: Moved from "Rand Paul" thread. - sN ***

I don't intend to re-argue the topic of abortion. I just wanted to note Rand Paul's support for the anti-choice ideology.

I understand. It was only a reminder that abortion is anti-choice from the point of view of the child.

"There is only one fundamental right... a man’s right to his own life."

Ayn Rand

Edited January 28, 2013 by softwareNerd

[thenelli01]

I understand. It was only a reminder that abortion is anti-choice from the point of view of the child.

"There is only one fundamental right... a man’s right to his own life."

Ayn Rand

Don't quote Ayn Rand, trust me she is not on your side.

[moralist]

Don't quote Ayn Rand, trust me she is not on your side.

I'm aware of that... and I'm also aware of her clear statement of one fundamental right.

[softwareNerd]

I understand. It was only a reminder that abortion is anti-choice from the point of view of the child.

Wow! Your immaculate Christian logic is sparkling through.

[tadmjones]

hmm what happened to moralist's unborn child comment?

[moralist]

hmm what happened to moralist's unborn child comment?

I was notified that it was deemed unfit for this forum.

[thenelli01]

I'm aware of that... and I'm also aware of her clear statement of one fundamental right.

Then you should also be aware of her statements on where rights are derived from.

[moralist]

Then you should also be aware of her statements on where rights are derived from.

Being a behaviorist, I'm much less concerned with the origin of a right than I am with the fact of it's existence. Every right implies a responsibility necessary for it's enjoyment. It's our behavior which makes the world what it is... and not our intentions or beliefs.

[bluecherry]

Where it comes from determines where it exists. Knowing how barking is produced will clarify very well the futility of looking for barking rivers for example.

(This is the thread that never eeeends, yes it goes on and on my frieeeeend . . .)

[AbA]

I was notified that it was deemed unfit for this forum.

I think it would behoove you to consider whether or not your basic Christianity maybe doesn't make you personally (over all and in general) not a very good fit with these forums.

Edited January 28, 2013 by AbA

[whYNOT]

I think it would behoove you to consider whether or not your basic Christianity maybe doesn't make you personally (over all and in general) not a very good fit with these forums.

You kidding? We have our very own Thomas Aquinas on O.Online, and you want to discourage him?

I don't agree with moralist's basic faith, and not with every conclusion he makes, but he is a damn good and honest

thinker.

Not forgetting that many Christians tend towards self-responsible individualism. Give me one of them before one

hundred secular-skeptical-progressives, any day. (As long as neither lot get their hands on State control.)

Besides, he is a very pleasant fellow.

[aleph_1]

Not forgetting that many Christians tend towards self-responsible individualism. Give me one of them before one

hundred secular-skeptical-progressives, any day. (As long as neither lot get their hands on State control.)

Besides, he is a very pleasant fellow.

I agree. Moralist and I don't always agree, but I would prefer to associate with a productive man than with a thousand leeches.

Let me preface my next remark by asserting the fact that I am an atheist. Too many on this forum are too quick to suggest religious motives to opinions that they do not agree with.

Now, all motives for abortion are a subset of motives for murder. If we are concerned with motives, and Atlas Shrugged is very much concerned with man's motive power, should we not be concerned with the motivations of those who take life? I say, abortion is murder because it has the same motive and practical effect.