Abortion

[Betsy]

the fetus is unborn. The mother isnt. Why should the mother have to sacrifice rights to something that isnt even born yet. Also, I think that it infringes on a mother's "property" rights...if you will go so far. I think the mother has the right to kick it out of her body at any time.

Not only that, but if the fetus really has rights, what about its right to liberty? It is being imprisoned in the mother's body and we should "liberate" it by getting it out of there regardless of what the mother wants.

[nimble]

Not only that, but if the fetus really has rights, what about its right to liberty?  It is being imprisoned in the mother's body and we should "liberate" it by getting it out of there regardless of what the mother wants.

hilarious. ahahah

[Betsy]

Even if the foetus were fully conscious, aware, and had all the reasoning powers of a healthy adult, the argument allowing its abortion would still hold, namely that there can be no justification for forcing the mother to incubate an organism against her will.

I disagree. If a fetus truly had the reasoning powers of a healthy adult, and is entitled to the right to life, one could flip that argument around and say that there is no justification in killing the fetus. My friend, it is important to know if a fetus has rights.

I could flip that argument around and say that, if a fetus has rights, there is no justification in keeping the fetus imprisoned in the womb.

I still find it hard to form an opinion of this issue; m0zart was right to say this is the most confusing issue of objectivis

Personally, I'd opt for free will. That was the last major issue I had with Objectivism. I always accepted free will, but for a long time I couldn't see how to reconcile volition with causality.

[Betsy]

My question is the one posed by m0zart (which I don't think was ever answered): "Why is degree of development important in this case,

I don't think it is.

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.

Rights only apply to human beings and, while the fetus may be human, it is not a being. It does not -- and cannot -- exist separate from the mother. Until it is born -- until it is outside and separate from the mother -- it is a part of the mother. As such, the mother has as much right to do what she wants to with her uterus as she does with her arms and legs.

[Oakes]

the fetus is unborn. The mother isnt. Why should the mother have to sacrifice rights to something that isnt even born yet. Also, I think that it infringes on a mother's "property" rights

Doesn't matter. If the fetus truly has a right to life, you cannot impede on that right by declaring the rights of another. Capitalism stands the freedom of an adult to do anything unless it impedes on the rights of others. Are you going to be consistent?

I could flip that argument around and say that, if a fetus has rights, there is no justification in keeping the fetus imprisoned in the womb.

If a child has the right to life, doing this would be illegal because it would result in the death of the child. If we had the technology to keep it alive, this would be an option, though only with the consent of the mother (because she is the legal guardian). That might actually be convenient, since they wouldn't have to go through all the agony of labor.

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.

So are you making the same mistake Spearmint and nimble made? Are you saying that the issue isn't whether they have rights, but just the fact that it is within the mother?

Rights only apply to human beings and, while the fetus may be human, it is not a being. It does not -- and cannot -- exist separate from the mother. Until it is born -- until it is outside and separate from the mother -- it is a part of the mother. As such, the mother has as much right to do what she wants to with her uterus as she does with her arms and legs.

Who cares what the fetus can and cannot do? Rights come from the fact that humans are volitional, not that they are physically separate beings.

So the same question is posed: Why is degree of volitional development important? A fetus is inherently a volitional being, whatever the development cycle. He may not always practice that volition -- he certainly doesn't when he's asleep, in a coma, under anesthesia, or suffering a debilitating disease (such as old age :-/) -- but generally we regard him as needing rights anyway for when (if) he wakes up. Why is a fetus different?

[nimble]

your arguments arent countering the points already made. A right to life doesnt gaurantee a beings survival. I have the right to life, but if i cant survive on my own, it is no one's responsibility to take care of me. The fetus cannot survive without the mother, and therefore (if it has rights) its rights are not infringed upon abortion.

[Betsy]

Who cares what the fetus can and cannot do? Rights come from the fact that humans are volitional, not that they are physically separate beings.

Not true.

Rights come from the fact that humans are volitionally rational AND that they are physically separate beings. My hands are definitely human -- every knuckle and fingernail has all the genes I had as an embryo -- and they are under my volitional control, but my hands don't have rights. I have rights including the right to decide what to do with my hands.

Until a baby is born, it is part of the mother. The mother has rights including the right to decide what to do with the fetus. Once the baby is born, it is no longer part of the mother and at that point, it has rights which the mother may not infringe.

[aynfan]

I don't think it is.

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. 

Rights only apply to human beings and, while the fetus may be human, it is not a being. It does not -- and cannot -- exist separate from the mother. Until it is born -- until it is outside and separate from the mother -- it is a part of the mother.  As such, the mother has as much right to do what she wants to with her uterus as she does with her arms and legs.

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. 

The fetus is where it is supposed to be. It did not arrive to the womb magically or barge in like a terrorist, it was invited.

As such, the mother has as much right to do what she wants to with her uterus as she does with her arms and legs.

A uterus is a baby making machine, what else can a woman do with it, decorate her uterine walls?

[DPW]

If a child has the right to life, doing this would be illegal because it would result in the death of the child.

If that were true, then no one has any rights. Consider: "You can't take away welfare because this would result in the death of some poor people." Or, "You can't deny people free medical care." Or, "You can't allow people to use drugs that will kill them."

The right to life means the right to take those actions necessary for one's survival - it does not mean others have an obligation to sustain your life (which would in fact be a violation of their rights).

Now, in the case of a child, there you have a different issue, because a parent is responsible for the welfare of his child. But that's why the question relevant to abortion is - does the fetus have rights in the first place? As I, Betsy, and others have pointed out, it does not. It cannot because it is not a separate entity acting in the world. It isn't a human being.

So the same question is posed: Why is degree of volitional development important? A fetus is inherently a volitional being, whatever the development cycle. He may not always practice that volition -- he certainly doesn't when he's asleep, in a coma, under anesthesia, or suffering a debilitating disease (such as old age :-/) -- but generally we regard him as needing rights anyway for when (if) he wakes up. Why is a fetus different?

Actually, when human volition begins is unclear. It probably begins when a newborn reaches the perceptual level of consciousness and is able to exercise selective focus. But that doesn't even happen until well after the moment of birth.

Of course, the more relevant point is that the degree of volitional development isn't important. What's important is, do you have a human being? If you do, you have a rights-bearing entity. If you don't, you don't.

[aynfan]

Until a baby is born, it is part of the mother.  The mother has rights including the right to decide what to do with the fetus.  Once the baby is born, it is no longer part of the mother and at that point, it has rights which the mother may not infringe.

So you are saying in the instant before birth no rights, that the mere act of exiting the birth canal confers rights?

[DPW]

A uterus is a baby making machine, what else can a woman do with it, decorate her uterine walls?

For human beings, the existence of a capacity does not necessitate the exercise of that capacity. If you do not believe me, here is proof: You have the capacity for rational thought.

[aynfan]

But that's why the question relevant to abortion is - does the fetus have rights in the first place? As I, Betsy, and others have pointed out, it does not. It cannot because it is not a separate entity acting in the world. It isn't a human being.

This argument of of separate entity is weak. It is clearly a separate entity, possessing all of its own parts, the same parts all humans possess. Is a fetus attached to a placenta so different from a newborn locked on to its mother's breast?

[Betsy]

It did not arrive to the womb magically or barge in like a terrorist, it was invited.

You can make a similar argument that a smoker invites lung cancer and, if he gets cancer, he has no right to have the cancer removed because it is there due to his own choices.

A uterus is a baby making machine, what else can a woman do with it, decorate her uterine walls?

A woman has the right to have growths, like benign fibroid tumors or cancers, or even her whole uterus surgically removed, and many women have. In fact, a hysterectomy is often, not so jokingly, referred to as "Catholic birth control."

[Betsy]

So you are saying in the instant before birth no rights, that the mere act of exiting the birth canal confers rights?

The mere fact of existing as a separate entity confers rights. That doesn't happen until the fetus is outside of the mother.

[Betsy]

This argument of of separate entity is weak.  It is clearly a separate entity, possessing all of its own parts, the same parts all humans possess. Is a fetus attached to a placenta so different from a newborn locked on to its mother's breast?

Ask an adoptive mother feeding her baby a bottle.

[aynfan]

You can make a similar argument that a smoker invites lung cancer and, if he gets cancer, he has no right to have the cancer removed because it is there due to his own choices.

A woman has the right to have growths, like benign fibroid tumors or cancers, or even her whole uterus surgically removed, and many women have.  In fact, a hysterectomy is often, not so jokingly, referred to as "Catholic birth control."

You can make a similar argument that a smoker invites lung cancer and, if he gets cancer, he has no right to have the cancer removed because it is there due to his own choices.

The reproductive process a proper functioning of the human body can not be compared to cancer which is a disease, to do shows a disconnect with reality.

A woman has the right to have growths, like benign fibroid tumors or cancers, or even her whole uterus surgically removed, and many women have.  In fact, a hysterectomy is often, not so jokingly, referred to as "Catholic birth control."

To have a diseased uterus removed is a rational decision, to hack away a part of the body because its function displeases you is not. Its like that crap in the Bible to the effect that if your right hand offends you cut it off.

[aynfan]

For human beings, the existence of a capacity does not necessitate the exercise of that capacity.

I am not arguing for the neccesity of reproducing that is an individual choice. I argue that once that choice is made, one be responsible for the consequences. Evading responsiblity for your actions is unconscionable. We have, for example, the capacity to be nourished by food. Is it rational to thwart that function by vomiting in order that the body conform to fashion standards. It seems to me, if one wants to be thin, he should limit his caloric intake.

[aynfan]

The mere fact of existing as a separate entity confers rights.  That doesn't happen until the fetus is outside of the mother.

This does not conform with Ayn Rand's view on the subject. No that that is required of you.

[aynfan]

Ask an adoptive mother feeding her baby a bottle.

I hope you meant this as a joke. If not it is not worth addressing.

[Oakes]

A right to life doesnt gaurantee a beings survival. I have the right to life, but if i cant survive on my own, it is no one's responsibility to take care of me. The fetus cannot survive without the mother, and therefore (if it has rights) its rights are not infringed upon abortion.

The right to life means the right to take those actions necessary for one's survival - it does not mean others have an obligation to sustain your life (which would in fact be a violation of their rights).

I'm quoting both of these since they are the same argument: that noone is obligated to keep you alive. This is true for adults, but not for minors (DPW pointed this out right after saying that).

Rights come from the fact that humans are volitionally rational AND that they are physically separate beings.

This is new to me. I didn't know rights required the combination of these two things. I actually figured these were two seperate arguments made by objectivists.

Let's assume this is true. Couldn't physical seperateness be considered part of our nature as well? It is a stage we will eventually reach (not a potential, but a guarantee). Again the question is, why does degree matter?

BTW what does this mean for the rights of conjoined twins?

Actually, when human volition begins is unclear.

It doesn't matter when it begins; only that volition is a part of us (genetically?) for the start. It is part of our nature.

You can make a similar argument that a smoker invites lung cancer and, if he gets cancer, he has no right to have the cancer removed because it is there due to his own choices.

Except that cancer bares no rights, while theoretically we are arguing that the fetus does.

[gnargtharst]

From Betsy: "The mere fact of existing as a separate entity confers rights. That doesn't happen until the fetus is outside of the mother."

From Aynfan: "This does not conform with Ayn Rand's view on the subject. No that that is required of you."

First, I would think that "conforming with Ayn Rand's view" is not what we're trying to accomplish here. Second, it *does indeed* conform with her view, anyway.

Beings have rights by virtue of being volitional, rational entities (making "rights" necessary), and by being *separate* entities (making "rights" applicable).

Presumably, it's not controversial here that a woman has rights. To grant rights to a *part* of a woman's body, residing in the same *space* as her body, is to contradict her rights. A fetus cannot claim rights, regardless of its degree of development, because it hasn't acheived separate-ness yet. Until it does, one cannot ascribe rights and interests to it apart from (and opposed to) the organism which supports it.

In short: fetuses cannot have rights because you'd have to go through the mother to grant them.

[Fred Weiss]

...We have, for example, the capacity to be nourished by food.  Is it  rational to thwart that function by vomiting in order that the body conform to fashion standards.  It seems to me, if one wants to be thin,  he should limit his caloric intake.

Well, yeah, but then are you suggesting that vomiting violates the rights of the food in your stomach (which you invited in there)? Will you stop already with "taking the consequences of your acts" argument? It is completely irrelevant to this issue. Furthermore it is often not invited. What about rape? Are you going to say, "Oh, well, in that case....". But why? If the fetus has rights what difference should it make how it got there?

As for your repeatedly questioning "the mere fact" of birth as compared to the minute before, that "mere fact" is of enormous biological and psychological significance. It is not a "mere fact". Ask any mother. If you want a "mere fact", in a rational world with modern technology, removing a fetus is a "mere fact", i.e. a very safe and relatively painless procedure. Birth in contrast is not.

And Ash is correct. In the vast majority of instances, having an abortion of an unwanted child is the most moral thing to do. Actually, since many parents aren't really prepared for the burdens of raising children, psychologically or financially, it would be a very good thing if there were even more abortions than there are.

Fred Weiss

[nimble]

oakes: what you are advocating is for the mother to have no say over her body. Allowing the baby to live in her body without the mother having a say is no different than if I were to crawl inside of someone (even though I physically cannot). Should the mother have to right to kick me out, even if the process might kill me, because I would fight to the death before coming out. (I realize this sounds either odd or hilarious, but seriously it is a parallel situation.)

[Oakes]

Well, yeah, but then are you suggesting that vomiting violates the rights of the food in your stomach (which you invited in there)?

Food doesn't have rights. grr.

Will you stop already with "taking the consequences of your acts" argument? It is completely irrelevant to this issue.

Agreed. I don't understand that argument. Whether or not the mother consented and must accept the consequences can be vague; what if the male "coerces" her to have the baby with his charm and wit. She may or may not realize and regret the mistake before actually giving birth to the child, but in any case, she can't (literally) kill the problem away if the thing has rights.

As for your repeatedly questioning "the mere fact" of birth as compared to the minute before, that "mere fact" is of enormous biological and psychological significance. It is not a "mere fact". Ask any mother. If you want a "mere fact", in a rational world with modern technology, removing a fetus is a "mere fact", i.e. a very safe and relatively painless procedure. Birth in contrast is not.

Gee, I guess if we can't have a firm dividing line, at least we can have a enormously significant one

And Ash is correct. In the vast majority of instances, having an abortion of an unwanted child is the most moral thing to do. Actually, since many parents aren't really prepared for the burdens of raising children, psychologically or financially, it would be a very good thing if there were even more abortions than there are.

Parents not wanting their child is a totally seperate issue. Noone would support the murder of a child to "put him out of the misery" of bad parents. If we make the assumption that a fetus has the same rights, the same thing applies.

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?

[Oakes]

Allowing the baby to live in her body without the mother having a say is no different than if I were to crawl inside of someone (even though I physically cannot). Should the mother have to right to kick me out, even if the process might kill me, because I would fight to the death before coming out.

False analogy. It's more like someone forcing you into someone else's body.