Abortion

[TomL]

So, only Objectivists SHOULD have children?  Gah, shoot me now.

I'm not saying that. But to say that anyone can have children for any particular reason they care to dream up because they feel like it isn't right, either.

There are things a child needs, and there is context a child must have in order to form his own ideas. I am like you in that my parents did a real number on me, but I turned out OK anyway. It wasn't -just- that I had volition. I had to be able to differentiate their lifestyle -- the beer & vodka swilling, "partying", Camaro-driving, government cheese-eating trailer trash lifestyle -- from another. The man that provided the context for me to make that differentiation was my grandfather -- a hard-working self-employed cattle rancher, who worked 7 days a week, regardless of weather, doing very diverse work, in order to provide for his own survival. If it were not for my grandfather, I'm certain I would be in a trailer park somewhere, drinking my stomach into non-existence at this very moment.

Don't you resent what your parents did you to? Wouldn't it have been a -lot- easier and given you more opportunities and a better life overall if they hadn't screwed you up? I resent mine, because I know that if I had been given the proper context to begin with I would be alot farther along in my life than I am now. I figure I lost about 10 years of my adult life trying to straighten myself out.

If my parent's had not been kids when they had me (dad was 19, mom was 17), my dad had a career, an identity, and some money, and my mom weren't always trying to make me "just like all the other kids", I would be a lot better off in life. That's time I cannot get back. I don't get to live it over again, its done.

If knowing that being properly prepared, with good values and finances extant to set the proper context for a child to learn from will give the child the best chance for the happiest life possible, why would you advocate something else?

How is it exactly that you think a child can have a child rationally? All you've said in defense of that is to say that you knew what the nature of pregnancy was and how to take care of a young child physically (I imagine, you meant feeding, laundry,etc). Don't you see there's a LOT more to it than that to do it as well as possible?

One need not be an Objectivist to rationally have children. But one does need a stable financial situation with funds to spare for the child and a career that provides that as well as self-esteem for the child to see that it is good, and how to get it. Ideally, it also requires that the child-raising fit into the parent's life plan with no conflicts.

[TomL]

Let's pretend a 17-year-old girl is married to a 21-year-old guy.  The 21-year-old already has a successful career and the 17 year old is planning on staying home and raising the children.

Well, I don't see how -that- can happen in reality. A 21-year-old with a successful career? Maybe a job, but a career? That's stretching the limits of "career", don't you think? And how exactly does he have the self-esteem he'll need to show the child? How much could he possibly have accomplished by 21?

Further, how exactly do a 17 year-old and 21 year-old know themselves well enough and have a strong enough sense of self in order to have a serious relationship, let alone get married? The abscence of necessary context to do this properly boggles the mind. People do not generally settle into a philosophic system (either implicit or explicit) until they start applying it to their real, adult life. Life as an adult is waaaaaay different from life as a child.

I will go even a step futher and say not only should this 21+17 year-old couple not be having children, they should not even be married.

[Richard Roark]

In Men's Health recently they had an interview with Tim McCraw had this to say and I think this is the point Tom is trying to make.

If I could've gotten away with it, I would've had kids when I was 16. But that's probably why I didn't get married until I was 29. I wanted to raise my kids right. I wanted to be able to take care of them, to be stable, and to just plain be there for them.

Also from a personal experience my childhood friend's sister had a kid when she was 16. She wanted to give the child up for adoption when she had it and as such the doctors took the baby away right after she gave birth. Yet, her mother wanted her to keep the child and she did. Over the course of years, the grandmother to this child has been there one minute and not there the next. The mother herself is a herione addict and is not a part of the child's life. The father of the child is a thug and has been in and out of prison for most of the child's life. My friend has been the one constant the child has had for most of his life. My friend would take the child but he is not stable enough in life himself to take over. The child last year was in and out of three different schools. How is this child going to be stable. This is the point Tom is trying to make and until you see it in reality and be a part of a young child's life being screwed up and see what is happening to him...This is the point Tom is trying to make and I agree with him %100. Anyway, thankfully his grandmother has taking over custody again and this time it seems to be something more stable, but I won't hold my breath.

Edited March 25, 2005 by Richard Roark

[JMeganSnow]

Well, I don't see how -that- can happen in reality.  A 21-year-old with a successful career?  Maybe a job, but a career?  That's stretching the limits of "career", don't you think?  And how exactly does he have the self-esteem he'll need to show the child?  How much could he possibly have accomplished by 21?

I know a 21-year-old that's running his second computer business. You're treating the some as the same as the whole.

I occasionally resent my parents, but I think it's a pointless activity so I'm working to get over it. I don't love them (I like them, and we get along pretty well) and I'm working on overcoming my anxiety about it. I don't feel like I've "lost" anything; my failures were my own.

[EC]

As I've mentioned previously the only aspect of Objectivism that I have ever found myself in disagreement with is the issue of abortion. The Terry Schiavo case has further illuminated that conflict in my mind. First off, I would like to say I have not read through this or the other Abortion threads because I think I completely understand the argument against abortion via passages from OPAR and other sources.

My beef has always been that I disagree that early human life is just potential human life, and yes I understand that to be human qua man you must possess a rational facualty. Here's how the Schiavo case ties in: I fully agree that Terry is no longer conscious and is essentially dead already, so I too see no harm in letting her die naturally. But this situation is NOT fully analogous to the case of a fetus because left unmolested a fetus will develop into a person with the capability of rational thought while with brain dead people like Terry it would be arbitrary to posit that she will ever regain consciousness and therefore volition. See the difference? A fetus left to live will develop into a child and then an adult with volition with high probability, this is why I don't consider them just a potential. Terry however will never regain volition and the case Objectivists use against abortion can fully be actualized in her case, in a slightly different form of course. Is my argument making sense?

Before anyone jumps down my throat and accuses me of being hypocritical, I am not doing what I see many of the trolls and anti-Objectivist on this site do. I am not making unsupported claims and stating them as if they are fact, essentially telling the Objectivists are wrong while using a poor attitude. What I am doing is trying to make my thinking on this subject explicit, and am asking for reasoning as to why my thinking may be right or wrong.

[JMeganSnow]

It's because a potentiality is not an actuality. However, you're approaching the question from the wrong angle, anyway, Eric. A fetus has no rights, because rights are derived from the existence of a rational faculty. Not the possible future existence of such (regardless of probability) but the ACTUAL existence of such. An adult human female HAS a rational faculty and HAS the right to decide what to do with her own body, end of discussion.

The "rights" of anything not possessing the key originating factor OF rights (rational faculty) are an anti-concept designed to destroy the rights of those that DO.

[Bryan]

But this situation is NOT fully analogous to the case of a fetus because left unmolested a fetus will develop into a person with the capability of rational thought while with brain dead people like Terry it would be arbitrary to posit that she will ever regain consciousness and therefore volition. See the difference? A fetus left to live will develop into a child and then an adult with volition with high probability, this is why I don't consider them just a potential. Terry however will never regain volition and the case Objectivists use against abortion can fully be actualized in her case, in a slightly different form of course. Is my argument making sense?

The fetus is dependant on the mother. When you say unmolested, it’s not like a fetus is planted in the back yard and nine months later a baby sprouts from the soil, it takes a lot of effort and commitment on the mother's part for the fetus to properly develop inside her. If she's not willing to exert this effort, why would the fetus' rights supersede her's?

[ann r kay]

  A fetus has no rights, because rights are derived from the existence of a rational faculty.  Not the possible future existence of such (regardless of probability) but the ACTUAL existence of such.  An adult human female HAS a rational faculty and HAS the right to decide what to do with her own body, end of discussion.

Forgive me if my logic is flawed here, but I see a fallacy in this argument. You say a fetus has no rights because those rights are derived from the existence of a rational faculty. Could not the same thing be said of a 1 or 2 year old child? If so, then does the mother have the right to kill her baby after it is born as well? At what age does a human develop a "rational faculty" and can this be proved?

BTW, this is the one area of Objectivism that I seem to have a hard time understanding as well. It is hard for me to condone abortion as a woman's right, since she and the fetus have two separate, individual brains. But I also can't see making abortion illegal, as that takes a way the woman's individual freedom of choice.

[plaintext]

First off, I would like to say I have not read through this or the other Abortion threads because I think I completely understand the argument against abortion via passages from OPAR and other sources.

Suggest you read this thread and the other ones on abortion. Someone has already stated your case.

[JMeganSnow]

Forgive me if my logic is flawed here, but I see a fallacy in this argument. You say a fetus has no rights because those rights are derived from the existence of a rational faculty. Could not the same thing be said of a 1 or 2 year old child? If so, then does the mother have the right to kill her baby after it is born as well? At what age does a human develop a "rational faculty" and can this be proved?

Bryan brought up the other key point in this; a child is physically separate from the mother, thus questions of its rights do not automatically mean a violation of the MOTHER'S rights. Any and all rights of a fetus are taken forcibly from the mother.

[EC]

I like the last point, but it seems to drop the context that the mother chose to have sex which includes the risk of getting pregnant which further entails the welfare of her child, mistakenly created or not, which is the only instance that I think the concept of welfare, strictly defined and delimited till the child is mature, is valid. Of course if her health is an issue that should be taken into account, but if she truly doesn't want the child, which I find abhorrent(sp?), there is always the option of adoption.

[JMeganSnow]

I like the last point, but it seems to drop the context that the mother chose to have sex which includes the risk of getting pregnant which further entails the welfare of her child, mistakenly created or not, which is the only instance that I think the concept of welfare, strictly defined and delimited till the child is mature, is valid. Of course if her health is an issue that should be taken into account, but if she truly doesn't want the child, which I find abhorrent(sp?), there is always the option of adoption.

Firstly, the mother didn't necessarily CHOOSE to have sex. But that's a different issue, and non-essential.

What is essential, is whether YOU have the right to decide whether a woman should or should not have the RIGHT to determine what happens with her own body. She may have other options. That's not important in determining whether she has the right to exercise a PARTICULAR option. (Should fast food be banned because people can eat healthier things? Same question.)

I mention eariler that being PERSONALLY pro-life is not necessarily irrational, what I meant by that is that you may decide, based on your own context, that you would never have an abortion. However, you cannot morally decide that, since YOUR context means that this is a rational decision, that other people with different contexts may not decide differently. The question of the RIGHT to abortion is different from the question of whether to have a PARTICULAR abortion.

I say you, even though I know you're male, because this decision is by right the decision of the mother ONLY. She can allow for a male to have a say if she chooses, but it is ultimately HER right and ONLY her right, because it is HER body and ONLY her body.

Indicating that "sex includes the risk of getting pregnant" is rubbish. An analogy; driving a car "includes" the risk of a car accident . . . does this mean one should magnanimously accept the damage done by a drunken driver? Or how about a perfectly sober driver whose brakes happen to fail? Blind submission to disaster is NOT a properly human trait.

Humans should not be slaves to their bodies; this is why birth control, which allows us to enjoy the incredible pleasure of sex WITHOUT enslaving us to the vagaries of nature, is such a temendous thing. Does a woman's right to continue making decisions cease at some point? No. If you personally are squeamish, that's your option. It is not your option to force this view upon others.

[TomL]

Check your premises! You seem to be saying that sex is only moral for procreation purposes. However, man as a rational, volitional being has a need for sex beyond the need for procreation.

If one is only to engage in sex if one is ready to procreate, then any other needs and desires must be what... suppressed? Ingored? Evaded?

[JMeganSnow]

Suggest you read this thread and the other ones on abortion. Someone has already stated your case.

Does this mean I should quit obsessively arguing it? I do it because it helps me to formulate the arguments better.

[plaintext]

Does this mean I should quit obsessively arguing it?  I do it because it helps me to formulate the arguments better.

Enjoy!

Problem is threads are all tangled up. There is a lot there but needs organization. One day maybe I will see a book in the ARB catalog "Hot Topics among Objectivists" by J.M.Snow. (Abortion, Homosexuality, Women as President, ?? what else??)

[Hal]

Forgive me if my logic is flawed here, but I see a fallacy in this argument. You say a fetus has no rights because those rights are derived from the existence of a rational faculty. Could not the same thing be said of a 1 or 2 year old child?

I would find the killing of 1-2 year old infants and the mentally disabled to be distasteful because of the way I've been brought up but thats about it - I wouldnt be prepared to say that it was objectively wrong for the precise reason that these people are not yet rational or fully self-conscious. If there were a society which was fully consistent with Objectivist principles regarding the treatment of rational adults, and yet didnt recognise the rights of babies and the mentally disabled, I would say that they couldnt be classed as immoral. I think that granting rights to the non-rational is an entirely cultural matter, and one which different societies can handle in different ways without any being objectively correct. Recognising the rights of rational beings, on the other hand, is obviously a 'right or wrong' matter.

I am in agreement that the claim animals/foetuses have no rights as they 'arent rational' while babies and the mentally disabled have rights because they are 'human' is incapable of rational justification. I suspect that most people who believe it do so because they find the idea of killing babies to be horrible (and I am in agreement), but a feeling is not an argument.

If so, then does the mother have the right to kill her baby after it is born as well? At what age does a human develop a "rational faculty" and can this be proved?

This is largely case-dependent - you might as well ask "at what age does a person become mature enough to drink alcohol or have sex?". We can all agree that a 2 year old is not mature enough while a 20 year old is, but there is no precise boundary to be drawn here - nature is 'continuous' rather than 'discrete'. If for legal reasons we are forced to create a sharp boundary then our final decision will always be somewhat arbitrary - there is no real reason to prefer the legal age for drinking alcohol to be 15 rather than 14. Similarly we can agree that a month old baby is not self-conscious/rational whereas an 8 year old is, but there is no special day on which a person becomes rational (and even if there were, it would vary from person to person). Since we want to avoid killing rational children it would be best to set the age significantly lower than 'average' - maybe a few years beforehand.

Disclaimer - when I talk about the 'severely mentally ill' I am indeed talking about the 'severe' cases. I think that (for instance) the majority of those diagnosed with schizophrenia have the same rights as the average person and utterly object to the idea of forcing them into mental hospitals before they have committed crimes.

edit: killing OTHER people's children would obviously be forbidden by property law, in the same way that killing other's dogs is currently (although the penalty would obviously be far more severe due to the level of emotional attachment involved).

Edited April 1, 2005 by Hal

[Hal]

I say you, even though I know you're male, because this decision is by right the decision of the mother ONLY.  She can allow for a male to have a say if she chooses, but it is ultimately HER right and ONLY her right, because it is HER body and ONLY her body.

Question: do you agree that a man should be allowed to walk away from a pregnancy without any reprecussions? For instance if he were to prefer the mother to have an abortion but she refused, do you think he should be responsible (either morally, legally or financially) for supporting the child after birth?

[JMeganSnow]

Question: do you agree that a man should be allowed to walk away from a pregnancy without any reprecussions? For instance if he were to prefer the mother to have an abortion but she refused, do you think he should be responsible (either morally, legally or financially) for supporting the child after birth?

The man should be financially responsible IF and ONLY IF he has a contractual obligation (e.g. a marriage) with the mother, otherwise he can do as he pleases. The metaphysical difference between men and women is what makes this situation necessary. Men are not slaves to women any more than women are slaves to their own bodies. If a woman doesn't like it, then she should think before getting pregnant.

[Hal]

The man should be financially responsible IF and ONLY IF he has a contractual obligation (e.g. a marriage) with the mother, otherwise he can do as he pleases.  The metaphysical difference between men and women is what makes this situation necessary.  Men are not slaves to women any more than women are slaves to their own bodies.  If a woman doesn't like it, then she should think before getting pregnant.

Ok, that's fine. Ive just encountered far too many people who believe that getting a woman pregnant automatically commits a man to ruining his life looking after the unwanted child, yet are amongst the loudest to shout about the 'right to abortion'.

I would argue about the contractual obligation bit though - I dont think that marriage constitues a contract to raise a child and I'm unsure why you think it would. Marriage is normally used as a declaration of love, not a commitment to have children.

Edited April 1, 2005 by Hal

[JMeganSnow]

On the contrary, marriage includes a contractual obligation to take care of any children that result from the couple's sexual activities. Love is not part of the legal obligations of marriage. Marriage is not an obligation to HAVE children, though, it simply means that, if children result, both partners are equally obligated to provide for their care.

An unmarried man has ZERO rights to his offspring. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The woman has all the say. That is the fundamental importance of that aspect of marriage.

[JMeganSnow]

I am in agreement that the claim animals/foetuses have no rights as they 'arent rational' while babies and the mentally disabled have rights because they are 'human' is incapable of rational justification. I suspect that most people who believe it do so because they find the idea of killing babies to be horrible (and I am in agreement), but a feeling is not an argument.

As I said, since a baby is physically seperate from the mother, it gains the rights of a human baby. The rights of babies (not fetuses, but babies) are actually a bit odd; they ARE entitled to physical support. (As part of the requirements of human development; no child can survive without support. The existence of a baby also presupposes a parent and, a parent WILLING to have a child, hence the distinction. The child is only entitled to support from that parent, not from the universe in general.) If their mother is unwilling to provide that support, the onus is now on her to find someone that WILL and VOLUNTARILY, otherwise she should be liable under the law. If she's incapable of providing support, well, the most merciful thing would probably be what the ancients used to do and some incredibly poor people still do; exposure.

Remember that rights are derived from the optimax situation; a healthy, fully functioning, independant adult. Determining what rights different states of human development/ability possess is a process of working down from that optimax situation, not of working up from "No rights" to "Full rights". (This is why my explanation may seem a bit odd.)

Fetuses are not animals or babies, so drawing analogous conclusions is not an apt description of the situation.

[EC]

The man should be financially responsible IF and ONLY IF he has a contractual obligation (e.g. a marriage) with the mother, otherwise he can do as he pleases.  The metaphysical difference between men and women is what makes this situation necessary.  Men are not slaves to women any more than women are slaves to their own bodies.  If a woman doesn't like it, then she should think before getting pregnant.

Earlier you told me this was invalid because of things like birth control, etc.

[EC]

An unmarried man has ZERO rights to his offspring.  Zip. Zilch. Nada.  The woman has all the say.  That is the fundamental importance of that aspect of marriage.

Why would you say this? I am an unmarried man and have and should have by moral right 50% rights to my child. He does have half my D.N.A. and my last name and he is my son.

[EC]

Fetuses are not animals or babies, so drawing analogous conclusions is not an apt description of the situation.

Oh really, what are the then, non-existent entities that pop into existence when they are born? Why should a baby be considered a baby the second it "pops out", but while it still resides within the mother a nanosecond earlier it is "not an animal or a baby"? That doesn't even make sense. My sister was born three weeks premature, was she simply just a "potential" for the first three weeks of her life with no rights? All of this argumentation seem to imply there is some "magical" moment when a child first leaves its mothers body which is absurd. If you are something right now you were also that something a nanosecond earlier regardless of your current location. A is A.

[JMeganSnow]

Earlier you told me this was invalid because of things like birth control, etc.

Earlier we were talking about a different situation. If you could give me a hand by quoting me, I will endeavor to explain the difference.