Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Abortion

Rate this topic


semm

Recommended Posts

She accrued that responsibility by the act of birth, and it is the child's rights, not the rights of the mother, that would be violated by not morally and legally holding the mother to the responsibility she incurred in creating that human life.

Isn't there also some degree of this responsibility incurred by consenting adults engaging in sexual relations ?

If it wasn't intentional; if the parties involved use contraceptive devices to prevent the pregnancy, but these failed, this doesn't change the morality of the act nor the responsibilities it incurs.

If Galt had impregnated Dagny in their encounter on the broken sandbags in the granite vault of the Taggart terminal, do people think Dagny would have had an abortion ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there also some degree of this responsibility incurred by consenting adults engaging in sexual relations ?

Certainly. But why do you ask that here? Do you have a point to make about abortion?

If it wasn't intentional; if the parties involved use contraceptive devices to prevent the pregnancy, but these failed, this doesn't change the morality of the act nor the responsibilities it incurs.
What does this have to do with our discussion? The morality of having sex and its concurrent responsibility is a separate issue from the morality and responsibility involved in choosing to give birth to a child.

If Galt had impregnated Dagny in their encounter on the broken sandbags in the granite vault of the Taggart terminal, do people think Dagny would have had an abortion ?

And what exactly is the significance of this question? Do you have a point you want to make? Perhaps related to your "rational religionists" theme? If so, please make your point about abortion and stop pussyfooting around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of Course.

Well, I'm sure her brother, and all the parasites at TT would agree with you. They'd have considered her having Galt's child to be an incredibly selfish thing to do. With the business falling apart, she'd "owe" it to them to get an abortion. They would consider it to be her "duty".

I don't think she would. I don't think she'd destroy the most obvious, natural, and real expression of her love for Galt. It would have been her perfect "out"; but it wouldn't have fit Rand's theme.

My point is that the morality and responsibility of having sex is obviously related to the morality and responsibility of choosing to give birth to a child. It's the first choice in the process. It's the human means of creating children.

The reason I proposed a hypothetical example from Atlas, was to help visualize how the abortion issue would be viewed by ideal characters who take their actions and responsibilities seriously. A child, like any other existent, does not come into existence from a vacuum. I'm trying to broaden the context of this discussion.

Most anti-abortionist try to make the case that abortion is a form of murder, and a violation of the "rights" of the fetus. I view abortion as a form of homicide, but one that has a lot more in common with suicide than murder. The life and values being destroyed exist primarily in the minds of the potential parents, and only potentially in the fetus. Laws banning abortion are barbaric, as are laws banning suicide. All they do is add more pain and suffering to a situation that is already grim. But I view promiscuous abortion as tragic, and as a symptom and evidence of a really sick and dying, anti-life culture.

I can't take credit for the "rational religionists" theme - that's George Santayana's.

But I appreciate the compliment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think she'd destroy the most obvious, natural, and real expression of her love for Galt. It would have been her perfect "out"; but it wouldn't have fit Rand's theme.

According to whose values do you derive that a child would the the "most obvious, natural, and real expression of her love for Galt"?

Can you justify that those would be Dagny's values because actually I think you are ascertaing your values here?

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that the morality and responsibility of having sex is obviously related to the morality and responsibility of choosing to give birth to a child.

My point is that the morality and responsibility of having sex is obviously related to the morality and responsibility of choosing to experience and to share the greatest joy of mind and body with someone who objectifies my highest values.

(Making babies is an option, but it tends to be a distraction from the primary purpose of having sex.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Throughout most of the discussions on this topic I get the sense that contributors are conflating the legalities of abortion with the moralities involved. I'm not sure I understand the Objectivist position clearly and so the following reflects only my own evaluation of the abortion issue.

I believe that the legalities are largely arbitrary because of the multiple interpretations and definitions that individuals hold for terms such as "fetus", "baby", "born", "viable", "human", etc... and at what point an entity obtains its "rights".

We can use reason to come up with a variety of legal answers to these matters, but in my opinion abortion is "morally" wrong (in most cases, but not all). The immorality actually occurs not at the point when the unwanted life is terminated, but at the moment when consenting adults engage in sexual activities (knowing the risks involved) that could "accidentaly" produce life without regard to consequences and when there is no intention of supporting such life (taking responsibility for their actions). The abortion then is a consequence of a preceding immorality.

(In the case of rape the immorality is not attributable to the victim, but to the aggressor). The morality issue here is alo analogous to that of the "lifeboat" situation, the choice the victim makes about the pregnancy is neither right nor wrong.

One could also argue that consciously and purposefully engaging in sexual activity without regard for the risks involved in incurring pregnancy AND with the intention to terminate all such pregnancies by means of abortion (at any stage up to and including the point of a partial birth) should NOT be considered "immoral" expressly BECAUSE those involved ARE accepting "responsibility" for their actions (since they at least had a plan for such contingencies, i.e., to abort). It would be legal, but I personally would not care to try to defend such behavior as "moral".

In the case of a planned pregnancy where it becomes know that the fetus is deformed or will not develop to a healthy conclusion then abortion would not necessarily be immoral (depending on the reasons for the decision).

My conclusion: abortion always legal, not usually moral.

I don't believe Objectivism leads one to the position that everything up to the point where the umbilical cord is severed is BOTH legal AND moral. The legal and moral aspects surrounding abortion begin and end at different points, are distinct and separate issues, and I believe should be argued from those perspectives.

Does Objectivism make such a distinction here? Should there be a distinction, and if there is, is it a clear or confused one? Or am I just confused?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think she would. I don't think she'd destroy the most obvious, natural, and real expression of her love for Galt. It would have been her perfect "out"; but it wouldn't have fit Rand's theme.

Your words and your attitude remind me of the immortal words of Balph Eubank when he too spoke of Dagny: "There's an example of it—a woman who runs a railroad, instead of practicing the beautiful craft of the handloom and bearing children."

As Ayn Rand portrays Dagny, her childhood was spent waiting to grow up so that she could run a railroad, not longing to be a mother. Dagny's life was her work, and not once do we see a hint that she ever thought of any other career than the one she had chosen. But you think that if Dagny got pregnant by accident she would give up her work for the career of a mother? :( Your religiosity is once again showing.

My point is that the morality and responsibility of having sex is obviously related to the morality and responsibility of choosing to give birth to a child. It's the first choice in the process. It's the human means of creating children.

What the hell is this supposed to mean? Do you know the difference between conceiving a child by intention, and by accident? The morality and responsibility of having sex is the rational pleasure of the couple, and if an unwanted accident occurs, they abort the fetus before it is a child -- that is the moral and responsible thing to do. Please take your religion elsewhere.

I view abortion as a form of homicide, but one that has a lot more in common with suicide than murder.
That you have the gall to refer yourself as an Objectivist is obscene.

I can't take credit for the "rational religionists" theme - that's George Santayana's.

But I appreciate the compliment.

As you well know, there was no compliment implied, but rather an ever-growing disdain for your attempts to hijack Objectivism for your own religious purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Throughout most of the discussions on this topic I get the sense that contributors are conflating the legalities of abortion with the moralities involved.

The confusion is more on your own part than on the part of any actual Objectivist posting here.

I'm not sure I understand the Objectivist position clearly ...

The Objectivist position on abortion is not difficult to understand at all. Here are three sentences from Ayn Rand which sums up the moral and legal issues. Nothing more needs to be said.

"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body? The Catholic church is responsible for this country's disgracefully barbarian anti-abortion laws, which should be repealed and abolished." (Ayn Rand, "Of Living Death," The Objectivist, Oct. 1968 -- Published Dec. 1968.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That you have the gall to refer yourself as an Objectivist is obscene.

I too find that obscene. If you don’t accept Objectivism in full don’t call yourself an Objectivist; it’s an offensive misrepresentation. If you agree with a few things Ayn Rand said then you can describe yourself as someone that agrees with a few things Ayn Rand said, but don’t call yourself something you are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything a human being does to promote his own rational i.e. long-term self-interest is moral.

When a person has abortion incase of accidental pregancy or severe changes in life, it is for his/her rational self-interest. Therefore it is moral.

A baby is an independent entity. Therefore it has rights.

As has been said before in this thread,

Rights apply only to the actual. Not the potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit to being confused on the Objectivist position.  I remain so.  I guess I need to find and read everything that Rand has said on the issue before I'm satisfied I understand it clearly enough.

Fair enough, but you will not find a great deal of writing on this by Miss Rand. In my view the issue really boils down to three essentials: That a human being is a biologically independent entity, that only human beings have rights, and that a woman has a right to her own body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I guess I need to find and read everything that Rand has said on the issue before I'm satisfied I understand it clearly enough...

Her Ford Hall Forum talk, "Of Living Death", is printed in three parts of "The Objectivist" - September, October, and November of 1968, starting on p. 513 of the bound edition.

This explores the implication of a Catholic publication ("encyclical") regarding sexuality, including basic ideas on abortion. The encyclical she analyzes, "HUMANAE VITAE", is now available on-line at the vatican website.

Comparing her analysis to the encyclical seems like an excellent opportunity to see how she extracts the essence if the matter. Also, having the encyclical in an electronic form allows you to search for key words so you won't have to read the whole thing.

Another article that gets into the abortion issue, and why "Not every wrong idea is an indication of a fundamental philosophical evil in a person's convictions; the anti-abortion stand is such an indication", is "A Last Survey" from November-December 1975 issue of "The Ayn Rand Letter", p. 383 in the bound edition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone may look at Stephen's statement that man by nature is a biologically independent being, and claim, "But wait, I thought man's nature, i.e. his defining characteristic, was his rationality. The capacity for rationality is not based upon biological independence, and thus such independence is not really relevant to what being man really means. Thus, say, if we end up observing that a fetus acquires rationality while in the womb and still connected to the woman, we may validly classify it as a human bein0067."

In order to explain what is wrong with this argument, I'm going to go ahead and apply some of Aristotle's terminology here.

Aristotle defined man as consisting of three natures:

First there's vegetative part, man qua living being, which we share with all living beings. An example of this would be the heartbeat or the growth of nails - it just happens by a simple biological process.

Second there's nonrational part, man qua animal, which we share with all animals. An example of this would be a reflex, or an emotion (I'm assuming here, forgot Aristotle's own examples).

Third there's the rational part, man qua man, a nature which we exclusively have, amongst all animals or living beings - a capacity for volition, and thus for logic.

By Aristotle's definition, these go in the order of fundamentality. If you take all existents in the universe, and try to understand man as he fits among them, it would be more accurate to say 'man is a living being' than 'man is an animal'. Our living nature is more fundamental to our definition.

The point of giving this Aristotelian distinction is to show where the argument at the top of the page is wrong, and what precisely is meant by the word 'human being' (man). Rationality is not our "most essential" nature. Our most essential nature is that of an independent living entity, which we share with such entities as microbes, single-cellular organisms, squirrels, and fruit flies. A fruit fly fetus, while it's still developing and biologically dependent on its mother, is not a fruit fly, not an insect, not a living entity - it is a biological extension of the mother akin to one of her wings or antennae. In short, it is living, but it is not an entity.

Earlier I said that man's three natures (or three components of man's nature, whichever way you want to put it) are placed in order of fundamentality. Thus concepts such as rights, while made possible by our rational nature, are disqualified if the preconditions for the rational nature are not met. A reasoning fetus still has no rights.

Thus, it matters little if the fetus becomes rational at some point, and likewise pointless to argue whether rationality is only possible after birth and entry into the Real World. Until the umbilical cord is cut, what we are dealing with here is not an independent entity, and thus not a human being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The confusion is more on your own part than on the part of any actual Objectivist posting here.

The Objectivist position on abortion is not difficult to understand at all. Here are three sentences from Ayn Rand which sums up the moral and legal issues. Nothing more needs to be said.

"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body? The Catholic church is responsible for this country's disgracefully barbarian anti-abortion laws, which should be repealed and abolished." (Ayn Rand, "Of Living Death," The Objectivist, Oct. 1968 -- Published Dec. 1968.)

Stephen, I agree that nothing more needs to be said in regard to the legal issue. But the quote you provide from Ayn Rand seems to be in the context of a legal answer, because of her use of the term "right to dictate" which implies she is refering to government force being used to impose laws on women, which does violate their rights.

From a moral perspective the issue is less clear to me, especially because of the seemingly arbitrary legal point at which a human is said to acquire rights, because that is the point at which a mother, in seeking to defend her own her own rights and achieve her own values, violates those of another.

Moral judgement here then is something that individuals make about themselves, based on their unique circumstances and wether their actions were purposefully directed at achieving their own values, and NOT a judgement society makes regarding individuals' decisions to abort. If a distinction is not made, abortion takes on the appearance of becoming a virtue under all circumstances, and I don't believe that is true.

Since each woman has her own idea of at what stage of development or birth a fetus earns a "right to life" (regardless of the legally enforced version), an abortion may or may not be moral. Infanticide, in some cases then, though illegal, could be moral (as in the case of the young student in Florida who delivered in a motelroom bath but then abandoned the infant in the dumpster).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, I agree ...

With all due respect, I think the problem you have with grasping the abortion issue is really due to something more fundamental, namely a problem with grasping the essence of morality. If you think it could be moral for a woman to abandon her baby in a dumpster then you really need to first study the Objectivist ethics in more detail. I would suggest reading Miss Rand's essay The Objectivist Ethics in the book The Virtue of Selfishness, and then study the issue of morality in more depth as presented by Peikoff in OPAR. There really is no point in me discussing specific issues regarding abortion if there is no basic agreement about ethical principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you well know, there was no compliment implied, but rather an ever-growing disdain for your attempts to hijack Objectivism for your own religious purposes.

OK. I'll bite.

How is suggesting that Objectivists with the stomach for it consider infiltrating religions and advocate reason directly to religion's victims an attempt to hijack Objectivism ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
There are atheists who are against abortion, you know---it is not strictly a religious vs. non-religious issue.

Before addressing this inaccurate representation of my view, I'd like to know what atheist leader is trying to overturn Roe v. Wade. Who are these atheists of which you speak? I'm curious.

And I don't think that it's the "definition of a human being" that is the crux of the matter, but when human life begins.

You need to know what human life is before you can know when it begins. To the typical Christian, human life is a miracle of God that begins at conception. You can contest the issue of conception being the starting point until you are blue in the face, but you are unlikely to get anywhere debating Christians on this issue, unless you initially provide an objective definition of a human being and ultimately challenge the arbitrary assertion of the Divine Creator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Swig,

You asked, "Before addressing this inaccurate representation of my view, I'd like to know what atheist leader is trying to overturn Roe v. Wade. Who are these atheists of which you speak? I'm curious."

There's the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League (AAPL), the founder of which is Matt Wallace. There's Jen Roth, who's written for infidels.org. There are other writers, etc---I think an Internet search would come up with more names. Are there lots of pro-life atheists? No, but I wasn't claiming that there were. I merely said that there were atheists against abortion.

You wrote: "You can contest the issue of conception being the starting point until you are blue in the face, but you are unlikely to get anywhere debating Christians on this issue, unless you initially provide an objective definition of a human being and ultimately challenge the arbitrary assertion of the Divine Creator."

I'm not talking about debating Christians. I am saying that an atheist can be against abortion purely on the grounds of embryology: the fetus is human; it's unique (has its own DNA); and is alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League (AAPL), the founder of which is Matt Wallace.

Okay. This group boasts about 200 worldwide members. You must be trying to pull my leg or something. Without even looking, I would bet a whole $10 that I could find more God-fearing communists than that. You know, come to think of it, aren't there more than 300 Christian "Objectivists"? Don't they have a Yahoo group or something?

Even AAPL guru Matt Wallace on his do-it-yourself homepage realizes how insignificant he is in the abortion debate:

I'm James Matthew (Matt) Wallace, aka The Compleat Heretic. I'm both a Secular Humanist atheist and a pro-life advocate. All too often, I fear that I'm the only nonreligious person who opposes the genocide of abortion used as a birth control substitute.

I hope you will forgive me for disregarding the atheist anti-abortion movement.

I am saying that an atheist can be against abortion purely on the grounds of embryology: the fetus is human; it's unique (has its own DNA); and is alive.

Is that what the handful of atheist anti-abortionists believe? Fine. Can we get on with disregarding them now? Or would you like to debate the atheist anti-abortion position on another thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Swig,

Did you read what I wrote before you launched into your reply? Here, let me repeat to you what I wrote. Now, read very, very slowly, and look at all of the words. Here's what I first said: "There are atheists who are against abortion, you know." Note that I did not say that there were a lot of them, but merely that they existed. When you demanded some names, I gave you the name of a pro-life atheist and agnostic organization, and a couple of individuals' names. I even restated, when giving you this information, "Are there lots of pro-life atheists? No, but I wasn't claiming that there were. I merely said that there were atheists against abortion." And despite the utter absence of any claim on my part that there are a lot of pro-life atheists, your post wastes time and space by ranting that there aren't many pro-life atheists, and that I "must be trying to pull my leg or something". No, no leg-pulling going on here---just an inability on your part to comprehend what I wrote. Here's a hint: before launching another rant against what I didn't write, why don't you read what I actually wrote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are atheists who are against abortion, you know---it is not strictly a religious vs. non-religious issue. And I don't think that it's the "definition of a human being" that is the crux of the matter, but when human life begins.

Are you for or against abortion -- and why?
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...