Abortion

[DPW]

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.

Right. I think the evidence indicates that when Rand referred to 'the essential issue' she meant the essential issue politically, not philosophically.

[Oakes]

I'd be interested how you reached this conclusion.

My main argument was that we are rational and metaphysically independent by nature, even if we haven't developed to these points yet. I further argued that this means we should get rights anyway. The biggest problem is that if someone asked me why I thought this, I wouldn't have been able to answer them. I couldn't answer myself.

[Fred Weiss]

My main argument was that we are rational and metaphysically independent by nature, even if we haven't developed to these points yet. I further argued that this means we should get rights anyway. The biggest problem is that if someone asked me why I thought this, I wouldn't have been able to answer them. I couldn't answer myself.

Yeah, I don't think that gets to the heart of the issue. The fetus is only potentially rational and independent. And in the focus on its purported rights what is overlooked is the rights and well-being of an actual rational and independent being: the mother - and the burden she is confronting assuming the fetus is unwanted. For religionists, who are the primary proponents of the alleged rights of fetuses, the rights of women are the last thing on their minds (and in more ways than one).

Fred Weiss

[McGroarty]

Lastly, I would like to point out the Ayn Rand recognised the possiblity for debate about late stage pregnancy.  But dismissed it due to the fact that late stage pregnancy is not the essential issue in the debate.

I'm not old enough. Were late term abortions common or practical when Ayn made the dismissal?

[McGroarty]

Premise check --

It seems as though everybody is treating a developing baby's possible right to live and a woman's right to biological independence as though they were necessarily in opposition. Further, it seems to be assumed that a woman's right to terminate pregnancy is the same as a blanket right for the woman to terminate the developing baby.

In my current thinking, abortion isn't the problem. The problem lies in the method of abortion and in the treatment of the aborted fetus.

It's currently acceptable to enact any measure of violence against a developing baby even in very late stages in order to exercise a woman's rights. However, given that babies have been delivered prematurely as early as three and a half months and still lived, other options exist.

Would it not be a more objective viewpoint that a woman has the right to have a developing baby excised so long as measures are taken to save any that are mature enough that they might have survived premature delivery?

[Godless Capitalist]

No, because the fetus doesn't have any rights until it is actually born. It's not relevant that it might be able to survive outside the mother's body; it is not actually doing so yet. Now, if an abortion procedure were to lead to the birth of a live baby, it would then have rights and could not be killed.

[McGroarty]

No, because the fetus doesn't have any rights until it is actually born. It's not relevant that it might be able to survive outside the mother's body; it is not actually doing so yet. Now, if an abortion procedure were to lead to the birth of a live baby, it would then have rights and could not be killed.

Please let me know if I'm clear on this. I'm not arguing against the position you state, but trying to see if I can reconcile it for myself.

I think most here are in agreement that in the majority of cases, where the abortion is done in the first trimester and what you have is a wad of tissue nobody can do anything with, there aren't rights. This is logical to me.

Let's take the far extreme of late third trimester abortions however. Do you view the following?

If an abortion procedure were to deliver a live baby, the baby would have rights.

A destructive abortion procedure violates no rights where the alternative is an early extraction of a living baby as above.

For example, in dialation and extraction abortions an early delivery is induced, the baby is delivered partly, and its skull is punctured and suctioned before completing the delivery. In cases where inducing a full delivery without the cranial destruction would produce a live baby, the fact that the baby is still partly inside a woman and the umbilical cord is not yet severed is sufficient that no rights exist?

I'm also curious if any rights would be violated were one to terminate a partly delivered baby once the birth process has begun naturally.

[Godless Capitalist]

In cases where inducing a full delivery without the cranial destruction would produce a live baby, the fact that the baby is still partly inside a woman and the umbilical cord is not yet severed is sufficient that no rights exist?

Yes. The same would apply if the birth process began naturally. More here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JServSes...ws_iv_ctrl=1021 .

[tommyedison]

Fact: An organism or a fetus exists inside a woman's body.

Premise 1: Human Rights are inalienable. Every human being has the right to defend his/her right.

Premise 2: An organism or fetus, conscious or not conscious, moral or immoral, rational or irrational, animal or human exists inside the body of the woman. If it exists without the consent of the woman, it is the violation of the rights of a woman.

Conclusion: The woman has every right to get rid of the organism or fetus whether the organism/fetus has rights or not.

[McGroarty]

Conclusion: The woman has every right to get rid of the organism or fetus whether the organism/fetus has rights or not.

This all hinges on accepting that the organism/fetus has rights:

My problem remains with the later stage abortions. If the woman and the organism/fetus have rights, a non-destructive procedure could be pursued which would have a high probability of delivering a live baby without harming the mother -- that is, without violating the woman's rights. If labor can be induced prematurely with drugs we can estimate that the result will be similar to that of naturally occurring premature deliveries, where there is a 50% survival rate starting around 24 or 25 weeks.

I don't see how a woman's right to choose not to carry through to childbirth is the same as a right to a destructive procedure when other options exist which are safe for the mother and allow the chance for a live delivery.

That said, most here agree that an organism/fetus has no rights. I still haven't seen convincing reason for that, however. The arguments I've read rely on the fetus not having cognitive processes which can't rationally be ascribed to newborns either, or rely on the fact that the fetus is taking nutrition from the mother through the embryonic cord. I don't think any here would argue in support of destruction post delivery merely because the cord hadn't yet been cut.

[tommyedison]

This all hinges on accepting that the organism/fetus has rights:

My problem remains with the later stage abortions. If the woman and the organism/fetus have rights, a non-destructive procedure could be pursued which would have a high probability of delivering a live baby without harming the mother -- that is, without violating the woman's rights. If labor can be induced prematurely with drugs we can estimate that the result will be similar to that of naturally occurring premature deliveries, where there is a 50% survival rate starting around 24 or 25 weeks.

Sure, but who is going to take care of the baby considering the fact that the mother wants to abort.

I don't see how a woman's right to choose not to carry through to childbirth is the same as a right to a destructive procedure when other options exist which are safe for the mother and allow the chance for a live delivery.

I don't think that most women abort just to escape the pain of pregnancy. They will still have to take care of the baby.

That said, most here agree that an organism/fetus has no rights. I still haven't seen convincing reason for that, however. The arguments I've read rely on the fetus not having cognitive processes which can't rationally be ascribed to newborns either, or rely on the fact that the fetus is taking nutrition from the mother through the embryonic cord. I don't think any here would argue in support of destruction post delivery merely because the cord hadn't yet been cut.

Even the newborn doesn't have rights except the one to survive if you come to think of it. Can a newborn leave his home? Of course not. Infact, a newborn doesn't even know what he/she is. A newborn is no different from an animal except for the fact that it is a part of human species and will become a conceptually conscious being if he/she survives. A fetus doesn't have rights because its existence is attached to its mother's existence. If the mother dies, the fetus ceases to exist. If the mother dies, the baby does not cease to exist.

A mother has the right to abort a fetus if she wants to because taking away that right is a compromise on her fundamental rights.

Let's take an analogy. There is very hungry child who doesn't have any food. If he doesn't find food within the next few hours, he will surely die. He enters your home and starts eating your food. However you have every right to throw him out of your house at any time whether he lives or he dies. Similarly, in the case of an unwanted fetus, its survival is dependent on the mother. But the mother has every right to eject it out of her body even though the fetus' existence is dependent on the mother.

[y_feldblum]

McGroarty, there are no rights conflicts. It cannot be true that both the mother and the fetus have rights in the same context. If the mother has rights over her body, then the fetus does not.

Moreover, forcing the mother to deliver prematurely, eg with drugs, is a violation of the rights of the mother to her own body, to her own freedom, to her own money (who is going to pay for the delivery, the drugs, etc?).

A right is a right. A mother's right to freedom of action as regards her body includes the right to be as destructive as she wants as regards things inside her body.

[Godless Capitalist]

I don't think any here would argue in support of destruction post delivery merely because the cord hadn't yet been cut.

That's exactly what Dr Peikoff argues. He draws the line at physical independence from the mother, which technically does not occur until the cord is cut.

[McGroarty]

That's exactly what Dr Peikoff argues. He draws the line at physical independence from the mother, which technically does not occur until the cord is cut.

I've read a few Peikoff abortion articles and Googled around, but not found this argument yet. Do you remember where you read this, or do you remember the reasoning that set this as the absolute start of personhood?

[Life]

Thank you for defending your pro-life stance. But I would like to point out that even though it is a fetus, it still is a human being, not just "developing" into one. God breathed a soul into it and therefore it does have life FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION! It doesn't look like a fully developed human being, but it is. Roe vs. Wade has claimed the lives of over 40 million Americans. The numbers are monstrous worldwide. How much longer can we let this mass holocaust of human beings go on?

[y_feldblum]

Hello, religionist. Unfortunately, few here believe in God, and few here believe in anything whatsoever without ample evidence. Few here are receptive to hysteria, emotionalism, and nonsensical comparisons to the Holocaust.

[tommyedison]

Thank you for defending your pro-life stance.  But I would like to point out that even though it is a fetus, it still is a human being, not just "developing" into one.  God breathed a soul into it and therefore it does have life FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION!  It doesn't look like a fully developed human being, but it is.  Roe vs. Wade has claimed the lives of over 40 million Americans.  The numbers are monstrous worldwide.  How much longer can we let this mass holocaust of human beings go on?

I AM GOD AND I WANT ABORTION. EITHER YOU TOE IN THE LINE OR DIE.

YOU SAY I AM NOT GOD; PROVE ME WRONG!!!

Seriously, defend your argument on a rational base, not on a mystical base such as God, supernatural or anything else.

Anyway, what proof do you have that a human being becomes a complete human being at the moment of conception, not at the moment of birth? The claim that a human being is a human being from the moment of conception is absurd.

[Godless Capitalist]

Life: You may as well save your time and leave the site now rather than waiting to be banned.

I've read a few Peikoff abortion articles and Googled around, but not found this argument yet. Do you remember where you read this, or do you remember the reasoning that set this as the absolute start of personhood?

Go to www.aynrand.org, then do a google site search on "abortion umbilical" A link will come up with the relevant phrase but the link does not work. A problem with the site maybe.

Anyway, as I understand it, the relevant issue is that the fetus does not become a separate being until it is physically independent of the mother.

[McGroarty]

Thank you for defending your pro-life stance.  But I would like to point out that even though it is a fetus, it still is a human being, not just "developing" into one.  God breathed a soul into it and therefore it does have life FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION!  It doesn't look like a fully developed human being, but it is.  Roe vs. Wade has claimed the lives of over 40 million Americans.  The numbers are monstrous worldwide.  How much longer can we let this mass holocaust of human beings go on?

How long can we let others dictate what happens to individuals' bodies based on unprovable beliefs?

I think everyone here is pro-life, in so much as a life is a human life with the full unalienable rights accorded thereto. Without those, life is as meaningless as it is to breeding stock.

[McGroarty]

Go to www.aynrand.org, then do a google site search on "abortion umbilical" A link will come up with the relevant phrase but the link does not work. A problem with the site maybe.

Anyway, as I understand it, the relevant issue is that the fetus does not become a separate being until it is physically independent of the mother.

The article seems to be missing or moved, but you can still view a copy from the "cached" link at Google. The statement that a severed umbilical cord and the body being outside of the mother mark the point of independence seems to belong to Glenn Woiceshyn. But Glenn makes that statement based on wanting to protect a woman's right to her own body through the entire pregnancy, not based on any attribute of the fetus.

The reason I asked about this demarcation is that I still have trouble with the view that a body can be as capable of independence as an infant, but not afforded rights because of physical location and attachment.

I understand and now share the objectivist view that a fully dependent being has no rights. This is a definite change from my emotionally driven view of a few months ago, where before reading objectivist views, I wanted life protected from the moment it was recognizably human. But I don't understand why a woman's right to her body would trump a presently viable human's right to live in cases where it's possible to induce delivery of a viable infant early.

I want to be very certain that I'm not accepting a position as correct if I can't fully derive the logic behind it. That a presently viable human isn't human merely because of its present location seems tenuous at best. Ditto for a human that is biologically dependent but capable of being otherwise if removed from its location -- removing a presently viable infant changes its circumstance, not the infant itself.

[McGroarty]

Moreover, forcing the mother to deliver prematurely, eg with drugs, is a violation of the rights of the mother to her own body, to her own freedom, to her own money (who is going to pay for the delivery, the drugs, etc?).

I will make the analogy and ask an honest question.

Given a baby in a crib, who a mother decides she no longer wishes to feed or keep, any demand that the mother attend to the child's well being is a violation of the mother's rights. How are demands on her freedom and money resolved here?

[y_feldblum]

The situations are not analogous.

The pregnant woman has no responsibilities to her fetus, but the mother has plenty of responsibilities to her child.

[McGroarty]

The pregnant woman has no responsibilities to her fetus, but the mother has plenty of responsibilities to her child.

Why? What aspect of the child inside and outside of the womb changes the mother's responsibilities?

Location doesn't change the nature of the child if it's developed enough that, given the opportunity, it's able to breath air on its own.

Cutting the umbilical cord doesn't change the nature of the child if it's capable of circulating blood and taking milk on its own.

I've seen location and the umbilical connection used as criteria for whether rights are present, but I don't understand the logic behind them, save being necessary to support a predetermined conclusion.

[stephen_speicher]

Given a baby in a crib, who a mother decides she no longer wishes to feed or keep, any demand that the mother attend to the child's well being is a violation of the mother's rights. How are demands on her freedom and money resolved here?

I think you have misattributed to whom the issue of rights applies in this case. A person cannot claim the right to violate another's rights, and here, in fact, the mother would be violating the rights of the child. As the parent she is both morally and legally responsible for her action of bringing the child into the world. Once the child is born he possesses all the normal rights due to a human being, but the parent must act as the custodian of those rights since the infant cannot exercise them himself. It is the mother's responsibility to provide the infant with all it needs to survive and flourish as a normal human being. 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.

[Free Capitalist]

The umbilical cord is a critical issue here. The baby isn't just residing inside the woman and living its own independent existence. It actively appropriates the woman's food, water, and oxygen energy for its own needs without asking the woman's permission. All this is done through the umbilical cord. The fetus also enjoys a protection to its bones, eyes, skin, and frame in general, because the woman's body excretes the fluids that serve to surround the fetus with a protective layer. That's what it means to say that the fetus is 'part of the woman'. It literally is an extension of her in much the same way as her heart is, or her intestines.

Thus a fetus is not an independent entity. It is a parasite, without the negative connotations around that term. It is what may be called a human being-in-development. Once the fetus is born and stops being biologically dependent on its host, it becomes a human being-in-training, with all rights this identity implies.