Abortion

[nimble]

no the baby is an unwelcomed parasite in the woman's body. It takes her food, her water. It cannot live without her. That sounds like the textbook definition of a parasite. Does she have the right to rid herself of a parasite? Of course. If the baby could live without her incubation, then it wouldnt be a parasite.

[gnargtharst]

So let's find out if this assumption is correct. I dare you all to stick to the same basic topic without straying off: Does it have rights?

No.

Rights are inapplicable to a fetus (just as rights are inapplicable to food) since observing those rights would necessarily abrogate already-existing rights.

[nimble]

No.

Rights are inapplicable to a fetus (just as rights are inapplicable to food) since observing those rights would necessarily abrogate already-existing rights.

nicely put.

[aynfan]

This my last post on this subject.

Peikoff

Fetuses and embryos are not actual human beings; they are potential human beings. They have no rights until they exist apart from the mother, i.e., at birth. This is not to condone the morality of arbitrarily delaying an abortion until the last months of pregnancy — when the fetus is approaching humanness.

"A piece of protoplasm has no rights-and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.-Ayn Rand

I am not against abortion in the 1st trimester.

[Spearmint]

"A piece of protoplasm has no rights-and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.-Ayn Rand

I'm not sure how Rand could argue about the later stages of pregnancy, other than to claim that not having an abortion in the first 3 months necessitates the acceptance of an implicit contract to carry the pregnancy out to its end (in the same way that actually giving birth is claimed to necessitate the acceptance of the responsibility to ensure the child is cared for until a certain age).

[y_feldblum]

The fetus is human in that, like a sleeping adult, it has rational potential. The issue isn't what the fetus is, but WHERE it is.

I don't agree. The issue is what kind it is. The fetus may or may not possess the faculty of reason; but that is not important. If it does, the issue is, does it possess the faculty of reason as its means of survival, and as a corollary, can it use the faculty of reason as its means of survival. The fetus' means of survival is the womb and the placenta - outside of those, the fetus has no capability for self-sustaining action. If it tried to exercise its faculty of reason in place of the womb and the placenta, it wouldn't stand a chance. A is A (inserted for dramatic Randroid effect). The fetus cannot use the faculty of reason as its means of survival; ergo, the faculty of reason is not its means of survival; ergo, the vast majority of its actions are neither caused nor explained by its possession of the faculty of reason; ergo, the fetus is not the rational animal; ergo, the fetus does not have rights.

[gnargtharst]

The fetus cannot use the faculty of reason as its means of survival; ergo, the faculty of reason is not its means of survival; ergo, the vast majority of its actions are neither caused nor explained by its possession of the faculty of reason; ergo, the fetus is not the rational animal; ergo, the fetus does not have rights.

But this doesn't distinguish the fetus from an infant, which also doesn't use reason for survival.

If -- to use a silly example -- the fetus somehow *were* able to use a rational faculty in vitro, it could still not claim rights. Its life would still be the property of its mother, by virtue of its occupying her space.

If the rational fetus were clever enough to escape its host, and incubate outside the mother, then, well maybe it would have an argument. I'll defer judgement on such, until one of them posts its case here on this forum.

[AshRyan]

"A piece of protoplasm has no rights-and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months."-Ayn Rand

I am not against abortion in the 1st  trimester.

The reason (I take it) Ayn Rand said the essential issue concerns only the first three months is because that is when 90-somthing percent of abortions are performed, and so in practice it is abortion during the first trimester that must be legally protected in order to secure a woman's rights.

It would certainly be wrong to take it that she is implying that she would argue about the later stages.

[Fred Weiss]

...So let's find out if this assumption is correct. I dare you all to stick to the same basic topic without straying off: Does it have rights?

You make it sound as if this issue hasn't already been covered. It has.

Once again, if you want to make an argument for fetus rights all you have to do is ignore the fact that it resides in a woman's body which is her property and dependent on her for its survival. What rights could it then have that did not conflict with hers? "Aynfan" attempted to argue that it was "invited", so therefore the woman has implicitly waived her rights. You apparently agree that's a specious argument. So what's left?

Fred Weiss

[y_feldblum]

From day one, an infant must begin developing, learning, and using his faculty of reason - or he does not stand any sort of chance long-term. Short-term, someone will probably feed him and change his diaper every so often, whether or not he begins to develop, learn, and use his faculty of reason; but looking only at the short term is not the best of ways to think. Look around you at the people who did not begin to develop, learn, and use their faculties of reason from day one: they never did, and now they have no means of survival - they are still being kep alive by the actions of others.

[Oakes]

Rights are inapplicable to a fetus (just as rights are inapplicable to food) since observing those rights would necessarily abrogate already-existing rights.

This is only true if you first make the assumption that the woman's rights hold default status over the fetus' rights.

The reason (I take it) Ayn Rand said the essential issue concerns only the first three months is because that is when 90-somthing percent of abortions are performed, and so in practice it is abortion during the first trimester that must be legally protected in order to secure a woman's rights.

Well, at least this could get you elected into political office.

Once again, if you want to make an argument for fetus rights all you have to do is ignore the fact that it resides in a woman's body which is her property and dependent on her for its survival. What rights could it then have that did not conflict with hers?

I think if it all truly boils down to this, as a lot of you seem to be indicating, the same argument could be made on children outside the womb. Children will always be dependent on their parents, mooching off of their property (their money). They may no longer be occupying the mother's physical property (her body), but such a distinction seems arbitrary.

[y_feldblum]

but such a distinction seems arbitrary

It is a distinction in kind, and kind has a lot to do with the question of reason and rights.

[gnargtharst]

Rights are inapplicable to a fetus (just as rights are inapplicable to food) since observing those rights would necessarily abrogate already-existing rights.

This is only true if you first make the assumption that the woman's rights hold default status over the fetus' rights.

I do. (Leaving aside the fact that your quote begs the question by reifying "fetus' rights".)

[Oakes]

It is a distinction in kind, and kind has a lot to do with the question of reason and rights.

This answer's pretty vague. What do you mean?

[y_feldblum]

Children and fetuses are different in kind, and their dependances on their mothers are different in kind. The distinction isn't arbitrary.

A fetus depends on its mother for its existence. A child doesn't. And mooching is a very inappropriate word in most cases.

[Oakes]

The distinction isn't arbitrary.

Why not?

A fetus depends on its mother for its existence. A child doesn't.

I challenge you to leave a newborn baby to fend for himself. How could you say that?

And even if a child doesn't, I can't imagine how that distinction could serve as anything other than a convenient way to draw the line.

[y_feldblum]

If the mother were to die, the fetus would die. A baby would not, and an adult would not. The difference between a baby and an adult regarding dependence and mastery of the faculty of reason are in degree, not kind. Dependence via womb and placenta is the fetus' means of existence; the faculty of reason is the baby's and the adult's. That a baby cries when it's uncomfortable or hungry or whatnot displays that, as does an adult's taking a job, earning money, and providing for achieving his fully thought-out values.

[Oakes]

Tho you haven't said anything new, I've decided, after long deliberation, that my argument no longer seems to, um, make sense. Damn.

Err, pretend I was never here.

[Oakes]

PS. Some of you need help. The pro-choice position doesn't need all this talk about insignificant clumps of cells, parasites, lacking consciousness, or how horrible it is to require a woman to take a child to term... Stick to the argument that rights are assigned only to metaphysically independent, rational beings. Go here.

That goes for you, too, Rand & Peikoff. I'm enraged that you didn't convince me sooner.

Good day to the rest of you

[Spearmint]

PS. Some of you need help. The pro-choice position doesn't need all this talk about insignificant clumps of cells, parasites, lacking consciousness, or how horrible it is to require a woman to take a child to term... Stick to the argument that rights are assigned only to metaphysically independent, rational beings.

But the point is that the qualifier 'rational' isnt needed - even if a foetus were fully conscious and rational, how would this affect the argument that:

Another flaw with the anti-abortionist view is the failure to acknowledge the proper metaphysical relationship between mother and the unborn fetus. The fetus is physically within the mother and connected to her via the placenta and umbilical chord. It is directly physically dependent on the mother for all of its life sustaining needs-oxygen, energy and safety from the external environment. The relationship between mother and fetus is not that of two distinct human entities, but rather that of an independent human being (the mother) with rights and a dependent physical appendage, something that is physically within and part of the mother and therefore cannot have individual rights.

?

All of these points apply to the foetus purely as a result of its existential state (ie being inside and dependent on the mother), rather than as a result of its mental capabilities. If we accept the argument that the foetus is 'part of' the mother, then the relationship between a mother and a (hypothetical) conscious foetus would probably be closer to that of 2 siamese twins than it would be to that of a mother and a child in the conventional sense

Not to mention that arguments such as this:

This view of the unborn fetus fails to make two vital distinctions-the metaphysical difference between the actual and the potential and between an entity and its parts. The anti-abortionist position also fails to recognize that human beings are granted rights qua man's status as a rational animal, not qua animal.

fall prey to the standard counters that this implies that babies and significantly mentally disabled people should not be granted rights, since they are not rational.

[Oakes]

But the point is that the qualifier 'rational' isnt needed - even if a foetus were fully conscious and rational, how would this affect the argument that:

You need the qualifier 'rational' to counter animal rights arguments.

[AshRyan]

Well, at least this could get you elected into political office.

It would be nice if you had bothered to actually address my point.

[Oakes]

It would be nice if you had bothered to actually address my point.

I said that because Ayn Rand's concern only for the first three months appeals to the majority while lacking any real objective reason for drawing the line there. Even now, having decided that my pro-life argument is insufficient, I wouldn't support a compromise. If metaphysical independence is a requirement for rights, woman's rights must be secured up until the umbilical cord is cut.

[Fred Weiss]

... having decided that my pro-life argument is insufficient, ...

I'd be interested how you reached this conclusion.

Fred Weiss

[AshRyan]

...If metaphysical independence is a requirement for rights, woman's rights must be secured up until the umbilical cord is cut.

I agree, but in practice (since what can be achieved politically is not always an all-or-nothing deal), the first trimester is absolutely essential to protect. That way, a woman at least has the option of getting the abortion during that period, and that's when the vast majority of abortions are performed anyway.