Abortion

[RationalBiker]

(Quote from the previous thread)

If you don't want babies, don't engage in the one act that is designed to create them.

You say designed, so that means you believe some being capable of intent designed sex for the purpose of creating babies. Who is this being that "designed" sex?

[Durandal]

If we are to accept everything Ayn Rand said without subjecting it to analysis and discussion then there's little point in having this forum.  Sherlock's questions are fine as long as he (she?) is willing to listen to the reasons for the answer.

I agree.

One must bear in mind that it is often -- not always -- possible to disagree with another Objectivist on a given subject without necessarily abandoning reason. Because of the contextual complexity of actual reality, the process of discussion can be long and tricky, as logic does not always navigate an immediately obvious path.

Personally, I don't think anyone can unilaterally condemn abortion whilst upholding rationality. However, I do think there is certainly reasonable conversation to be had concerning the threshold of human life, and the philisophical definition thereof. Hell, if the matter was already entirely decided, there wouldn't be a thread on it

[Edited to fix grammatical mistake]

[RationalBiker]

Sherlock, please see the first post of this thread which clearly states:

Thanks for pointing this out Dominique.

It's becoming clearer by the moment that Sherlock is neither presenting or supporting a position in compliance with the forum rules. Moreso, he is not merely questioning to understand Objectivism, but asserting his view without supporting it with Objectivist concepts or principles.

Twice now, he has used the concept that sex was "designed". This is consistent with a belief in a supreme being, which is mysticism. The idea of a creator is an arbitrary concept not consistent with Objectivism. I have asked him to clarify this concept and one other. Those responses will determine what further action I take.

[Dominique]

If we are to accept everything Ayn Rand said without subjecting it to analysis and discussion then there's little point in having this forum.  Sherlock's questions are fine as long as he (she?) is willing to listen to the reasons for the answer.

Certainly, I was just trying to make it clear what Ayn Rand's position was, since it is clear that Sherlock is not discussing this with any sort of Objectivist premise. If she would like to advance why, even if the embryo was a human being with a separate right to life, that it should be allowed to take precedence over the rights of the mother, as I asked her to do in the previous thread on this subject, then I think that would promote more productive discussion, rather than just having her list repeatedly the same arguments that have been addressed and explained ad nauseum in the last thread. But that's just my opinion, I personally am not interested in debating the issue unless there is some consideration for Objectivism involved in it. There are Abortion debate forums that cover these standard arguments in depth.

[JMeganSnow]

I went back to read the previous thread and I want to make a small addendum to my post there:

I am not in any way asserting that one can disagree with Objectivism and still be an Objectivist, merely that discussion and analysis are part of the learning process and integrating knowledge.

I consider myself an Objectivist even though I do not know everything about every aspect of Objectivism because I am in agreement with the parts of it I do know, and arrived at that agreement through a rational process of thought.

Is this a fair statement?

Edit: Oh, and I'm sorry that I had trouble discerning what gender Sherlock is.

[MisterSwig]

No, it's simply that you won't accept the evidence I do offer that an individual's life is a continuum beginning at conception.

Are you going to respond to my counter to your argument? Here's a link to it.

I don't accept your "evidence," because it does not support your assertion. You wrote:

The new life begins when that distinct entity begins to develop, which is when it is conceived ...

Yet, you have not proven that a "new" life is created at conception. You also haven't proven that the "distinct entity" actually is a "distinct entity" (whatever you mean by that), nor have you proven that it is actually a human being.

The fact that some living tissue has distinct human DNA does not prove that that tissue is a human being. My sperm inside a woman possesses distinct human DNA. Does that mean that my sperm inside her is a human being? No. DNA is DNA. It does not equal a human being. An embryo may have distinct human DNA, but that doesn't mean it is a human being. There are many other essential characteristics which it must achieve before it becomes a human being. The most important of which is that it must become an independent entity--in the sense that I described in my counter to your assertion.

[RationalBiker]

If we are to accept everything Ayn Rand said without subjecting it to analysis and discussion then there's little point in having this forum.  Sherlock's questions are fine as long as he (she?) is willing to listen to the reasons for the answer.

The point is, Sherlock is not merely questioning to understand how abortion is viewed by Objectivists or through Objectivist principles or concepts. The problem is he is promoting a position which he is not supporting by Objective means and he is presenting at least one positition that is clearly arbitrary and not consistent with Objectivism. And if he were presenting new arguments that have not already been examined and refuted several times over, his posts may be more permissible. But his arguments have been examined and refuted many times.

I don't want you to be mistaken that this forum is a place where anyone can come along and state any opinion they want regarding a topic, especially under the auspices of challenging Ayn Rand or Objectivism. There are plenty of forums that will allow that behavior, but this isn't one of them. The focus of the board is much smaller and may not be for everyone. If a person / people insist on deviating from it, they will be prevented from posting here.

Edit: To put this a little more succinctly, one need not entertain every arbitrary notion which may challenge Ayn Rand or Objectivism for this board to have a purpose.

Edited January 26, 2005 by RationalCop

[Dominique]

One must bear in mind that it is often -- not always -- possible to disagree with another Objectivist on a given subject without necessarily abandoning reason.  Because of the contextual complexity of actual reality, the process of discussion can be long and tricky, as logic does not always navigate an immediately obvious path.

However, I do think there is certainly reasonable conversation to be had concerning the threshold of human life, and the philisophical definition thereof.  Hell, if the matter was already entirely decided, there wouldn't be a thread on it 

No one is questioning that Objectivists can disagree, but there was a previous thread on this subject, which Sherlock participated in, and due to her behavior there, I responded the way I did to her post here.

I personally have a definite interest in discussing this matter as it pertains to Objectivism, since I think it is fundamental in regards to "right to life" and "identity" and several other issues I want to learn about. However I do not wish to get caught up in the most trivial of the sign-holding-bumper-sticker-protest shenanigans.

[AisA]

Scientist,

Your post paints a rather odd picture of the relationship between mother and offspring. The embryo does not magically appear in the mother's womb as an illegal squatter, but  instead is the completely predictable consequence of having sex, the purpose of which is to produce babies. If a woman doesn't want to have a baby, she ought not to engage in the activity that produces them. If I were to take your approach and apply it to other aspects of human behavior, I could say, then, that despite eating a dozen pizzas and 6 quarts of ice cream a day, fat cells do not have a "right" to inhabit my body.

No, what we would say is that a women who overeats and gets fat has the right (provided she can afford it) to pay a physician to remove the fat cells by liposuction.

Also, why do you suppose a human embryo is not a human being? Is it not a human? If so, please tell me how it is that you arrive at that conclusion Is it not a being? Please tell me how you arrive at that conclusion. When does an embryo, then, become a human being? Do brain waves; heartbeat; fingerprints, etc. enter into your conclusion of what is and what is not a human being? I need more information in order to have a discussion.

Please see my first post in this thread. It concludes with a question for you.

The burden of proof for establishing that a fetus or embryo has rights rests with you, the party making the positive assertion.

[Durandal]

Since my last posting I have read up on more of Sherlock's statements -- and they tend to be just that -- on the issue, and I no longer consider his/her contributions to be of value, or even value-seeking.

In that sense, I would retract my last post's sentiments with regard to Sherlock's comments on this matter.

[MisterSwig]

And I am not engaging in ad hominem attacks ...

Then what are these statements, if not ad hominemish?

I was not able to address your last post to me because the thread was closed down, but that wasn't because you had presented convincing arguments against my position.

You don't respond to my actual arguments, rather you simply assert that I am not convincing.

I am saying that abortion is wrong because it takes the life of an innocent human being.

Rather than focus on proving your claim that an embryo is a human being, you find it necessary to repeatedly call people who have abortions murderers.

Evading responsibility for one's actions is not something I will ever sanction.

Again, rather than trying to show why an embryo has individual rights to be protected, you'd rather insist that people who have abortions are irresponsible.

Yup, I do maintain that [an embryo is a human being], and you haven't given me any reason to think otherwise.

Well, here you are simply attempting to transfer the burden of proof on to me, when it is you who claims that an embryo is a human being. However, I have presented an argument against the idea that an embryo is a human being, and you have ignored it. So, basically, here you are saying that my arguments completely lack reason, rather than showing why that is so.

Abortions are the result of a group of humans (the born) deciding that another group of humans (the unborn) are non-persons or sub-humans, just as the Nazis did. The predictable result of these sorts of distinctions is a pro-killing policy.

Ah, and here you again provide no proof that an embryo is a human being. Instead, you resort to name-calling, making it clear that you think of us as murdering Nazis.

I think you might want to consult your basic biology testbooks. I didn't respond to your last post on the previous thread, but that was only because the thread was closed, not because I couldn't counter your replies.

And here you attempt to assault my intelligence and knowledge of biology, rather than saying anything of relevance to the question at hand.

I suspect that even if you do decide to reply to my argument on the other thread, your comments will probably be much like your recent post which I have now dissected and shown to be little more than personal attacks on your opposition.

[JMeganSnow]

I participated in a thread on TIA Daily forum about this precise issue, including other side issues that were brought up in the other [abortion] thread [on this forum], most notably what responsibility a man has for a child, and we reached the following conclusions (in general, I'm not saying everyone that participated in that thread agrees with these statements, merely that they didn't continue the argument once these statements were proposed):

1. A fetus does not have rights.

2. The decision whether to abort/not abort a fetus belongs solely to the mother unless she voluntarily seeks input from the father.

3. Men are only obligated to provide for a child if they have an actual contractual obligation, not an implied one. The contract that generally serves this purpose now is marriage, but this isn't to say that other contracts can't be made.

If anyone is interested I will elaborate.

[] = edits I made as the sentence could be unclear

[JMeganSnow]

I don't want you to be mistaken that this forum is a place where anyone can come along and state any opinion they want regarding a topic, especially under the auspices of challenging Ayn Rand or Objectivism. 

I don't think that, in fact, it's clearly stated in The Rules. After reading some more of the other thread I agree that Sherlock isn't presenting anything of real value.

[Sherlock]

Wow----where to begin? I'm going to try and address as many points as possible, but it may take a while (I have a job).

RationalCop, you wrote: "You say designed, so that means you believe some being capable of intent designed sex for the purpose of creating babies. Who is this being that "designed" sex?"

I don't know what word you would prefer other than "designed". "Programmed?" I can't use the word "evolved" in this case, since only those first simple forms of life that already had reproduction "built in" survived in order to evolve into more complex forms of life. But regardless of the word I use, the fact is that the main purpose and result of copulation is reproduction. Without reprodction, life on this planet could not have survived and evolved---therefore, for the higher animals, reproduction is pleasurable. That for humans, and perhaps for a few other organisms, it also serves to strengthen pair bonds (thus promoting a stable environment in which to raise offspring) is true, but still the act's main purpose is reproduction.

Mr.Swig, you wrote: "Yet, you have not proven that a "new" life is created at conception."

Well, don't take my word for it, listen to science:

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, considered the "Father of Modern Genetics" and discoverer of the cause of Down's Syndrome: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence."

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at Mayo Clinic: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

The widely used medical textbook "The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology" (6th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Saunders, 1998), states on page 2 that

"This cell [the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being ...." At page 18 this theme is repeated: "Human development begins at fertilization ...."

What part of this is unclear? Some scientists might approve of abortion, but that is a judgment about the value of human life, not about the scientific fact that human life exists.

And yes, I am aware of Ayn Rand's position on this, but she was wrong. But this may have been from the lack of scientific understanding of the development of the fetus, which has made great strides since her day. With that understanding have come such realities as fetal surgery, which began in the '80's. If the prevailing position is that Miss Rand was infallible, then I would respectfully disagree, and suspect that she would have too.

[Dominique]

1.  A fetus does not have rights. 

2.  The decision whether to abort/not abort a fetus belongs solely to the mother unless she voluntarily seeks input from the father.

3.  Men are only obligated to provide for a child if they have an actual contractual obligation, not an implied one.  The contract that generally serves this purpose now is marriage, but this isn't to say that other contracts can't be made. 

If anyone is interested I will elaborate.

I am interested. I agree with the three points, and only would like you to elaborate on point three, as I see that as a fertile (pun intended) topic of discussion.

Does this mean that if a woman decides to have the child on her own, she cannot hold the father financially responsible no matter what DNA tests show or whether he signs he name on the birth certificate (or does him claiming fatherhood on the birth certificate count as a contract with the child that he will support it)?

If a man marries a woman who already has a child-would he be required to support it, and or to continue supporting it after dissolution of the marriage (if the marriage was dissolved)?

[Durandal]

Reproduction is not the purpose of sex. Sex, per se, does not intrinsically possess a purpose, much like an inanimate object is incapable of being good or bad.

...I think I'm right on that, but, Moderators, if that is metaphysically incorrect, please let me know

[JMeganSnow]

You are correct as far as I can tell, Durandal. Reproduction is an EFFECT of sex, not the PURPOSE.

In addition, Sherlock has confused the difference between "life" and a "person" yet again. I'm not going to address any further comments her way because she has clearly abandoned any pretence of thought on this matter. I remain interested in what other people have to say.

[JMeganSnow]

Elaboration on point 3:

If a woman decides to have a child on her own then yes, the father is not responsible to provide material support. He may if he so desires. I would consider that claiming fatherhood on the birth certificate would be an explicit acknowlegment of obligation (it is a voluntary act, after all). A DNA test is not a voluntary assumption of obligation, it is merely an establishment of a fact.

The responsibilities of a man marrying a woman with children would have to be spelled out contractually. My stepfather adopted me, and, if my mother had died he would have been contractually obligated to provide for my further support. There is nothing that says a man MUST adopt the children of his wife-to-be.

[Dominique]

And yes, I am aware of Ayn Rand's position on this, but she was wrong. But this may have been from the lack of scientific understanding of the development of the fetus, which has made great strides since her day. With that understanding have come such realities as fetal surgery, which began in the '80's. If the prevailing position is that Miss Rand was infallible, then I would respectfully disagree, and suspect that she would have too.

Please address the quotes I provided for evidence of where the scientific understanding of the development of the fetus even figures into the equation.

The issue you are not addressing here is the "right to life", and why you believe it pertains to the unborn at the expense of the mother, why she should forfeit her life to that of an unborn entity.

Do you hold that Sex=Baby and that if a woman is "irresponsible" enough to engage in sex when she does not want to have a baby then she ought to be made to suffer the consequences of carrying a pregnancy to term no matter the personal sacrifice it would be to her, no matter the effect on her body, on her career, and her future?

If so why?

If not, can you see the contradiction in your position?

[MisterSwig]

Mr.Swig, you wrote: "Yet, you have not proven that a "new" life is created at conception."

Well, don't take my word for it, listen to science:

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, considered the "Father of Modern Genetics" and discoverer of the cause of Down's Syndrome: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence."

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at Mayo Clinic: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

The widely used medical textbook "The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology" (6th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Saunders, 1998), states on page 2 that

"This cell [the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being ...." At page 18 this theme is repeated: "Human development begins at fertilization ...."

What part of this is unclear? Some scientists might approve of abortion, but that is a judgment about the value of human life, not about the scientific fact that human life exists.

I see. So now you have adopted another fallacy: appealing to authority.

Each one of those quotes simply arbitrarily asserts what you were previously arbitrarily asserting. What's your point? That some scientists agree with you? That proves nothing. Some scientists agree with me, too. Do you see me quoting them? No, I use my own mind and make my own arguments.

Do you see how you are now relying on others to make your arbitrary assertion for you? Those quotes aren't examples of evidence or logical reasoning. They are preaching dogma--like you are.

Is that the extent of your "evidence"? Or do you have another fallacy up your sleeve?

[RationalBiker]

I don't know what word you would prefer other than "designed". "Programmed?" I can't use the word "evolved" in this case, since only those first simple forms of life that already had reproduction "built in" survived in order to evolve into more complex forms of life. But regardless of the word I use, the fact is that the main purpose and result of copulation is reproduction. Without reprodction, life on this planet could not have survived and evolved---therefore, for the higher animals, reproduction is pleasurable. That for humans, and perhaps for a few other organisms, it also serves to strengthen pair bonds (thus promoting a stable environment in which to raise offspring) is true, but still the act's main purpose is reproduction.

It's not an issue of my preference, it's an issue of your clarity. "Designed" has a specific implication, as does "programmed". You can't attribute your lack of clarity to being an issue of my preference. However, evolved may be more suitable. Our evolution into "higher level beings" affords us the ability to determine our purposes, not have them biologically dictated to us. And considering the population of the planet at this point, extiniction does not appear to be an issue.

And you still haven't proven that the purpose, or even the main purpose, of sex is procreation, you simply make the assertion.

If you are looking at this from a strictly biological point of view, and that the purpose is determined by the result, then the argument can be made that the physical enjoyment derived from sexual intercourse occurs far more frequently than does a resulting pregnancy. Therefore, the main purpose of sex is the physical enjoyment, not the procreation.

However, as "higher level beings", the purpose of our sexual activity is determined by us, not our biology. We are not simply, or solely slaves to our biological functions. We have brains and the capacity for conceptual, rational thought so that we can determine our purposes, not simply follow our "programming" or "design". That incidentally or consequently (as your premise that sex=babies is false, sex does not always = babies), a biological function may occur as a result of a decision to have sex for our purposes, is not a basis for limiting the decisions of the higher level being to protect their life from the incidental biological function.

Edit: removed one redundant statement.

Edited January 26, 2005 by RationalCop

[Dominique]

Elaboration on point 3:

If a woman decides to have a child on her own then yes, the father is not responsible to provide material support.  He may if he so desires.  I would consider that claiming fatherhood on the birth certificate would be an explicit acknowlegment of obligation (it is a voluntary act, after all).  A DNA test is not a voluntary assumption of obligation, it is merely an establishment of a fact.

I agree entirely with this position, and find it to be consistent with Objectivism and also a practical application of the "right to life" between men and women. A woman shouldn't have to consult a man about her decisions regarding her own body, and a man should not be required to support a child financially when he was not consulted on the decision of whether or not to bring it into the world.

The responsibilities of a man marrying a woman with children would have to be spelled out contractually.  My stepfather adopted me, and, if my mother had died he would have been contractually obligated to provide for my further support.  There is nothing that says a man MUST adopt the children of his wife-to-be.

Again, I agree with this, and it brings up for me (though this is proabably a discussion for another thread but maybe not) the issue of Adoption and whether that is also at the sole discretion of the parents, because as I understand it now the government intervenes and screens any prospective adopters.

Is this a measure of protection for the child, and so a government responsibilty?

In other words, what are considered rights to guardianship

and rights of guardianship

(in other words, the rights of the child vs the rights of the parent)

[Inspector]

Sherlock, you need answer the direct and very very important questions that have been asked of you before you even ATTEMPT to make deductions or assertions.

Specifically, why do you believe that a fetus is a human being, and why do you think the purpose of sex is procreation?

These two points are the source of the disagreement here, so it is both futile and counterproductive to make any statements based on deductions from those two.

Oh, and for the record, RationalCop, you are being very patient and quite clearly understand the Objectivist position.

[RationalBiker]

Moderator's Note: I have now issued a warning to one user for violating one of the rules cited at the beginning of this thread. I had hoped placing that warning prominently at the start of the thread would be sufficient.

[JMeganSnow]

Again, I agree with this, and it brings up for me (though this is proabably a discussion for another thread but maybe not) the issue of Adoption and whether that is also at the sole discretion of the parents, because as I understand it now the government intervenes and screens any prospective adopters.

Is this a measure of protection for the child, and so a government responsibilty?

In other words, what are considered rights to  guardianship

and rights of guardianship (in other words, the rights of the child vs the rights of the parent)

Mm, my stance on this requires a bit of explanation otherwise the context is going to seem odd.

Adoption is at the sole discretion of the parents: this meaning that they can choose to adopt or not adopt. Screening/lack of screening is immaterial to their right to make this choice.

Screening is protection for the child. However, I contend that the government should in no way be involved in this process. It is motivated by the desire of the current guardian to ensure that the future guardian or co-guardian of the child is acceptable to his or her standards. The government should not ever be considered the guardian of a child except perhaps very briefly in cases of emergency where guardian status of anyone is completely undetermined (such as a police officer finding a baby in a dumpster).

The question of rights in a guardian/child "contract" doesn't quite fit in my mind. I see it as a voluntary obligation on the part of the guardian and not really a contract between the two: children cannot (and are not mentally equipped to) enter into a contractual agreement. The only obligation I could see pertaining to the child would be to the effect that the child would become independant after a specific period of time, but this matter is arbitrated between the child and the parent once the child is mentally equipped to understand and undertake the requirements of independance.