The Line- On Abortion

[Rudmer]

Even though I come from a strong Christian background, I've found my relatively rapid "conversion" to Objectivism to be remarkably smooth. Any time that an ingrained, irrational premise or belief was challenged by the tenets Objectivism, I've never had to spend more than a little while puzzling things over before coming to a fully integrated conclusion -- always deciding in Objectivism's favor. However, I seem to have hit a snag.

The issue with which I am having so much trouble could be resolved if only I could justifiably answer the following question: at what point along the gradient from two-celled organism (immediately after conception) to fully-grown does a biological human being become a person? In other words, at what point does a human being acquire rights, specifically the right to life? As you have probably guessed, I am struggling with deciding my position on abortion.

An embryo is obviously not a rights-bearing person. An embryo cannot perceive its environment, and thus has no consciousness nor a conceptual faculty. Similarly, a newborn baby is obviously a rights-bearing person. But what separates a newborn baby from one who is still inside his mother late in the third trimester? Does the unborn, but comparably developed, baby possess the same rights as the newborn? If so, at what point during developing in the womb does a fetus become a person? If not, why? (Is it simply the fact that he has not yet been born? If so, why does an event that can happen in a fairly wide range of time -- my niece was 3 weeks premature, my nephew a week late -- determine whether a human being has rights?)

If man's rights have their origin in his nature as a rational being, as Objectivism says they do, when is human being rational enough to have those rights, to be man?

Please understand that I am not approaching this from an anti-rights, anti-life position as so many "pro-lifers" do. I am very much pro-life in the Randian sense. As I said, an embryo obviously doesn't have rights, while a baby does. My concern actually comes from my great esteem for the rights of man: I am troubled that I cannot tell with finality when a human being is a right-bearing person and when they are just a bundle of cells, because that leaves open the possibility that I might condone the destruction of a right-bearer.

[BrassDragon]

Rights are a political instantiation of morality--specifically, the moral code that applies to man qua man.

Under this moral code, it is ethical for the mother to pursue her own life, her own happiness, and her own well-being; and it would be immoral for someone else to force her to make a particular choice re: the birth or abortion of the fetus.

Given this, I think the answer to the question of "when the line is crossed" is kind of irrelevant. And that's a good thing, I think, because really, the line between a "man" and whatever comes before that (a "fetus" or "baby" or "young child" or some such variant describing the early stages of our species' youth) is a nebulous area, not a line :-) At least, that's how I interpret it and what I believe to be correct.

Ayn Rand's moral code for man qua man is for for adults (and to some degree for adolescents or children), but isn't applicable to humans that are more or less 0 years old, like fetii or newborns.

Edited October 1, 2009 by BrassDragon

[bluecherry]

Oh hey, another abortion thread. I'm sure this question has been dealt with in at least some of those threads before if you go dig through them. You can probably use the search function to find some of those threads.

Anyway, to give a fairly short version of what has been covered in more detail elsewhere: If you want to know when a human embryo becomes a person, start by asking what a person is, what something needs to count as being a person. Just being alive and having full human DNA isn't enough of course for starters or else every cell on your body would be its own person. Also you should consider what rights are and what are the conditions that give rise to them. For one thing, you need beings capable of rationality and that that will be their primary means of survival in order for rights to arise, but also rights apply to individuals. This is why other animals that live by things like instincts don't have rights and why collectivism and rights just don't mesh. Early on an embryo has no brain, so it clearly doesn't count as a person and can't have rights at that point, but even then later on in the pregnancy it is still not an individual yet so much as a dependant on an individual. However, the status of the fetus as being a person with rights or not is all rather moot to the abortion question because the nature of rights are as freedoms of action, not automatic entitlements to goods or services that others have to provide. Even if a fetus had a right to life it wouldn't obligate the pregnant person to allow the fetus to stay living off of them anymore than you are obligated to give some grown adult one of your kidneys if they need it to live just because that person has a right to life. (The post above was also pointing this out correctly.) On the off chance though that you may want to bring up something similar to a contractual obligation which I've heard often in abortion debates elsewhere, as I've also heard said many times before in those abortion arguments, "consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy" and furthermore, to have a contractual obligation you have to make a contract WITH somebody. You can't make an agreement of any sort, even one that is not legally binding (since minors can't really make contracts with others anyway legally) with something or someone who does not already exist. So getting pregnant in the first place even through voluntary actions can't be taken as an agreement, especially not a legally binding one, to get and/or remain pregnant.

So anyway though, generally birth is the point at which a fetus-now-baby is recognized as having a right to life. At that point it is developed enough and capable of surviving without having to leach off any one particular person and is now an individual. Though the baby still needs assistance from other people to meet its needs to live, just about anybody could go ahead and do that for the baby, it doesn't all need to come from anybody particular. I think there may also be some relevance at this point to point out that even if the same person who birthed it keeps meeting its needs, the needs are now being met primarily by acts of choice from a mind as opposed to through the automatic processes of a body. But, that may be digressing some, I haven't yet completely thought through the implications of that difference. I think it bears some on the difference between a more other-non-rational-animal-like way of surviving it has before birth versus how afterward even if it isn't yet really practicing the use of reason, it isn't surviving by way of just the automatic really and is instead dependant upon voluntary exchange of some sort (even if it has no idea that is what is going on, that it is getting a value because it is seen as providing a value to somebody else's life) and the exercise of reason by somebody at least. And even if they may look a lot alike what is done to care for a new born versus what is done to care for a number of pets, the pets were always born with certain non-rational ways built into them and that will never change while a new born was just plopped down on Earth with all the equipment for rationality, just they haven't had enough experience yet to put in data to then start being rational with. Or even shorter still: Baby=person (individual rational animal), fetus =/= person (non-individual rational animal), other animal =/= person (individual non-rational animal). (I know you didn't bring up other animals really, but it frequently comes up comparing newborns to other animals, so I figured I'd cover that now just in case.) Babies as people can and do have rights, but they don't have all the same rights as adults because of the nature of rights as freedoms - a baby just isn't capable of being free to do the same kinds of things as adults. Babies sure can live though, hence why they do have a right to life at that point.

[Randroid]

Welcome to the forum and congratulations on your "conversion".

But what separates a newborn baby from one who is still inside his mother late in the third trimester?

Birth.

Ultimately, it does not matter whether a late-term fetus has a right to life. Rights cannot contradict each other. If the fetus' hypothetical right to life apparently contradicts the woman's right to life (in the Objectivist sense), then one of those rights doesn't exist - and it's obviously not the latter.

There is already a very long thread on the topic. Just search the forum for "Abortion" and you will find what you're looking for.

[Grames]

An embryo is obviously not a rights-bearing person. An embryo cannot perceive its environment, and thus has no consciousness nor a conceptual faculty. Similarly, a newborn baby is obviously a rights-bearing person. But what separates a newborn baby from one who is still inside his mother late in the third trimester? Does the unborn, but comparably developed, baby possess the same rights as the newborn? If so, at what point during developing in the womb does a fetus become a person? If not, why? (Is it simply the fact that he has not yet been born? If so, why does an event that can happen in a fairly wide range of time -- my niece was 3 weeks premature, my nephew a week late -- determine whether a human being has rights?)

Birth is the difference that makes the difference. It breaks the profound physical dependence of the fetus on the mother for food and oxygen, it permits the use of the senses (all of the senses, touch, full movement, sight, smell, etc) which enables consciousness to develop. Consciousness is dependent upon having a brain and a relationship to reality. A brain floating in a sensory deprivation tank has no consciousness nor conceptual faculty, and that is the essential situation of a baby in the womb.

If man's rights have their origin in his nature as a rational being, as Objectivism says they do, when is human being rational enough to have those rights, to be man?

Birth. Children have guardians to exercise some of their rights on their behalf until the children grow to adulthood, but they are considered human beings with human rights from birth. A concept is not its definition, which means rationality is not what makes a being a human being.

[SapereAude]

Just thought I'd point out to those chastising the OP to do searches on "Abortion" first.

I personally thought his question was specific enough to merit a new thread. All the other posts would've meant wading through endless arguments, some of them religion based about the varying immoralities of abortion. period.

It seems like it was in his rational self interest to bypass arguments he has already answered for himself in the interest of asking for a single point to be clarified.

I realise I'm not a Mod, and I haven't been here long so I apologise if I'm out of line.. but it seemed needlessly snarky to a newcomer with a lgetimate question to ask.

[Randroid]

Just to clarify, it was not my intention to chastise the OP. I was merely pointing him in a direction where lots more information on the topic is available, if he is interested.

Please don't take my response as "STFU, n00b!", Rudmer. Just trying to be helpful.

[Rudmer]

Just to clarify, it was not my intention to chastise the OP. I was merely pointing him in a direction where lots more information on the topic is available, if he is interested.

Please don't take my response as "STFU, n00b!", Rudmer. Just trying to be helpful.

No offense taken. I had, in fact, waded through several threads on the subject (one of them 55 pages long!) to no avail. Perhaps I should have mentioned that in my initial post...

Anyways, I think I am now beginning to understand why birth, and not conception or a certain stage of biological development, is the catalyst. An unborn human, no matter how well-developed, cannot be a rational being because they have always been in a "sensory deprivation tank." Merely the potential for rationality does not confer rights.

Am I on the right track?

[Grames]

I think you are on the right track but I still think you are too hung up on rights depending on rationality. Rights in principle are logically derivative of rationality, and rights for individuals are legally derivative of personhood, but to attempt to use rights as a middle term in some argument trying to link personhood to rationality is a fallacy, a rationalist word play. It is more accurate to say the potential for personhood does not confer rights.

What confers personhood is being a person, it is as simple as that. A baby is pretty much the same a moment before and after birth, but what it does (little things like breathing!) and its relationship to the world is completely different, and becomes the same as a person's.

[BrassDragon]

Rights are a political instantiation of morality--specifically, the moral code that applies to man qua man.

Under this moral code, it is ethical for the mother to pursue her own life, her own happiness, and her own well-being; and it would be immoral for someone else to force her to make a particular choice re: the birth or abortion of the fetus.

Given this, I think the answer to the question of "when the line is crossed" is kind of irrelevant. And that's a good thing, I think, because really, the line between a "man" and whatever comes before that (a "fetus" or "baby" or "young child" or some such variant describing the early stages of our species' youth) is a nebulous area, not a line :-) At least, that's how I interpret it and what I believe to be correct.

Ayn Rand's moral code for man qua man is for for adults (and to some degree for adolescents or children), but isn't applicable to humans that are more or less 0 years old, like fetii or newborns.

Let me clarify my position (which has evolved very slightly).

As I said (and as Ayn Rand said), rights are a political instantantiation of morality.

A baby gains rights the instant it is born, because at that instant (and not before), it becomes immoral for an adult human to initiate force against it.

This is the immediate reason -- and not because a fetus suddenly becomes a "man" or a "rational animal" (whether that is the case is ambiguous, anyway) that a baby has rights, and a fetus doesn't.

Furthermore, it has nothing to do directly with the baby's potential to grow into a man, potential for rationality, etc. Those facts may contribute to why it is immoral to initiate force against the baby, though.

I would invite feedback on this. I'm not certain that this is totally in agreement with what Ayn Rand wrote, and would appreciate someone pointing out any discrepancies or other mistakes.

Edited October 4, 2009 by BrassDragon

[Grames]

I would invite feedback on this. I'm not certain that this is totally in agreement with what Ayn Rand wrote, and would appreciate someone pointing out any discrepancies or other mistakes.

You are entirely begging the question of why does it become immoral for an adult human to initiate force against a newborn? Since you have ruled out the possibility that it could be because a fetus becomes a man at birth or potentially becomes a man, you have painted yourself into a corner leaving no way to ever attribute rights to a newborn. If you keep pursuing this rationalistic path you will be compelled to concede the morality of infanticide.

Identifying a human being is an application of a first level concept. There is no "proving" to be done here, only recognizing that a baby has the attributes of a person.

[Jake_Ellison]

Please understand that I am not approaching this from an anti-rights, anti-life position as so many "pro-lifers" do. I am very much pro-life in the Randian sense. As I said, an embryo obviously doesn't have rights, while a baby does. My concern actually comes from my great esteem for the rights of man: I am troubled that I cannot tell with finality when a human being is a right-bearing person and when they are just a bundle of cells, because that leaves open the possibility that I might condone the destruction of a right-bearer.

By allowing abortion, you do not condone it, just as by allowing drug use, you do not condone it.

So, you should give up on this false alternative between either allowing another person to do something, or condoning everything she/he does. The reason why you should have no say in what a woman does with her body is because she has no say with what you do with yours. Also, the reason why you cannot assign rights to something that is inside her body, is because those rights would not objective, they would conflict with the woman's rights.

The reason for rights, the reason for Politics in general, has to do with the morality of selfishness: it is in your self interest to participate in society which has Objective rights. It would not be in your self interest to assign rights to beings that are parasites.

If man's rights have their origin in his nature as a rational being, as Objectivism says they do, when is human being rational enough to have those rights, to be man?

No, man's rights come from his nature, period. Man is rational, independent, vulnerable to force, etc. The independent part is key, since it would not be in any independent man's self interest to subscribe to a system of rights which is designed to sustain parasites, non-independent entities, at the expense of independent entities.

Otherwise, what's to stop society from forcing people to care for all those who are rational, but for some reason can't be able to support themselves? Liberals lead with the same exact reasoning you used here: Why would you condone the suffering of the poor, by being against me stealing money from the rich to help those poor?

You're asking: Why should I condone a woman aborting her fetus? The answer: you don't have to condone it, you just have to not violate her rights.

Anyways, I think I am now beginning to understand why birth, and not conception or a certain stage of biological development, is the catalyst. An unborn human, no matter how well-developed, cannot be a rational being because they have always been in a "sensory deprivation tank." Merely the potential for rationality does not confer rights.

Am I on the right track?

I disagree, I think they are able to hear and feel outside stimuli. I'm not saying that they do form concepts (though it's not exactly settled that they don't) , but it isn't impossible. The key to political rights is however man's capacity and need for independence. Without that essential attribute, a living entity cannot be considered "man".

Edited October 4, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[DavidOdden]

As I said (and as Ayn Rand said), rights are a political instantantiation of morality.

Do cats have rights? Cats are not entirely outside the sphere of morality -- it is immoral to torture kittens. Yet you have that right, it it's your kitten. But you do not have a right to torture your son. What's the difference?

I think the problem is that the relevant principles are assembled hierarchically. To talk about the "immediate reason" behind a conclusion about rights, you have to get that hierarchy correct. If I understand what you mean by "immediate reason", I think you're talking about the lowest principle that subsumes the particular conclusion. The concrete conclusion "This baby gained rights the instant it was born" could derive immediately from the principle "(Human) babies gain rights the instant they are born". Then you could attempt to derive that principle from a principle "it is immoral to initiate force against a baby". (It is unnecessary to specify "human" as agent since moral evaluation applies only to humans, and it is wrong to specify "adult" since moral evaluation is generally applicable to all rational beings and you don't need to burden each principle with "adult" exceptions to cover the problem of 2 year olds).

However, I don't think that the principle "it is immoral to initiate force against a baby" is correct as a low-level principle. It would follow from a higher principle "it is immoral to initiate force against a human" -- you're just instantiating the principle w.r.t. types of human -- but that principle fails to include the important focus on the kind of immorality. I would say that the proper higher-level principle would be that "it is legally prohibited to initiate force against a baby" which follows from "it is legally prohibited to initiate force against a human", which then follows from "it is immoral to initiate force against a human". The logical transition from morality to rights and legality has to be at a higher level. In the instance of validating the principle "it is legally prohibited to initiate force against a baby", this follows almost trivially from "it is legally prohibited to initiate force against a person", requiring only the grasp of the fact that babies are persons.

[Eiuol]

Birth is the difference that makes the difference. It breaks the profound physical dependence of the fetus on the mother for food and oxygen, it permits the use of the senses (all of the senses, touch, full movement, sight, smell, etc) which enables consciousness to develop. Consciousness is dependent upon having a brain and a relationship to reality. A brain floating in a sensory deprivation tank has no consciousness nor conceptual faculty, and that is the essential situation of a baby in the womb.

I do understand you're talking about consciousness *developing*, but I seriously doubt that a fetus exists in an environment absent of any sensory information. At some stage it certainly will be develop all its senses inside the womb. And perceive reality outside the womb by means of hearing. But this would be such a late stage anyway that it may be impossible to abort the fetus without "giving birth."

[blackdiamond]

I would say that the proper higher-level principle would be that "it is legally prohibited to initiate force against a baby" which follows from "it is legally prohibited to initiate force against a human", which then follows from "it is immoral to initiate force against a human".

I'm not sure that I've followed your argument here. If I've understood you correctly, you are saying "it is legally prohibited to initiate force against a human" logically/immediately follows from "it is immoral to initiate force against a human."

Why then shouldn't "it is legally prohibited to torture cats" logically follow from "it is immoral to torture cats," going by that same simple derivation process?

I seek clarification.

[i do agree that it should not be illegal to torture your own cat, by the way, even if it is indeed immoral; I'm just wondering about the deduction above.]

[DavidOdden]

If I've understood you correctly, you are saying "it is legally prohibited to initiate force against a human" logically/immediately follows from "it is immoral to initiate force against a human."

No, not immediately. You can immediately derive "it is legally prohibited to initiate force against a baby" from "it is legally prohibited to initiate force against a human" (plus the obvious "babies are humans"). There is a logical connection between legality and morality, but it is not by any stretch immediate. Comparatively speaking, I'd say that there are vast numbers of steps involved in connecting morality and legality, compared to the simplicity of applying principles stated in terms of legality to types of beings.

[blackdiamond]

Thank you.

[BrassDragon]

Do cats have rights? Cats are not entirely outside the sphere of morality -- it is immoral to torture kittens. Yet you have that right, it it's your kitten. But you do not have a right to torture your son. What's the difference?

I think the problem is that the relevant principles are assembled hierarchically. To talk about the "immediate reason" behind a conclusion about rights, you have to get that hierarchy correct. If I understand what you mean by "immediate reason", I think you're talking about the lowest principle that subsumes the particular conclusion. The concrete conclusion "This baby gained rights the instant it was born" could derive immediately from the principle "(Human) babies gain rights the instant they are born". Then you could attempt to derive that principle from a principle "it is immoral to initiate force against a baby". (It is unnecessary to specify "human" as agent since moral evaluation applies only to humans, and it is wrong to specify "adult" since moral evaluation is generally applicable to all rational beings and you don't need to burden each principle with "adult" exceptions to cover the problem of 2 year olds).

However, I don't think that the principle "it is immoral to initiate force against a baby" is correct as a low-level principle. It would follow from a higher principle "it is immoral to initiate force against a human" -- you're just instantiating the principle w.r.t. types of human -- but that principle fails to include the important focus on the kind of immorality. I would say that the proper higher-level principle would be that "it is legally prohibited to initiate force against a baby" which follows from "it is legally prohibited to initiate force against a human", which then follows from "it is immoral to initiate force against a human". The logical transition from morality to rights and legality has to be at a higher level. In the instance of validating the principle "it is legally prohibited to initiate force against a baby", this follows almost trivially from "it is legally prohibited to initiate force against a person", requiring only the grasp of the fact that babies are persons.

Thanks - I agree with all that you've said. Indeed, I was looking for the lowest-level principle that subsumes the conclusion.

To answer your question about cats, my thinking is: although it is immoral to initiate force against cats, it does not follow that it should be legally prohibited to initiate force against cats. (In fact, such a prohibition would be a violation of rights.) Legal prohibitions against initiating force only apply to men interacting with men, since this is a prerequisite to living successfully in society. Is that precisely correct?

[Castle]

My opinion diverges a little from the standard party line, but I think my thinking is sound. I would say that the line is drawn when the neurological structures are fully formed and capable. To my knowledge this has not been accurately determined, I would assume very late in gestation. Using only birth as a criteria seems off base if the exact same being is there before. Another possible criteria that seems relevant is viability of the fetus outside the womb. If the abortion is essentially inducing birth and then killing the newborn or allowing it to die, there seems to be a moral issue there.

I'd like to restate that my opinion there is not the standard Objectivist argument, as far as I know. I'll try to find the quote, but I do remember hearing Peikoff illustrating abuses in China by pointing out that compulsory late stage abortions are common there. Obviously the complusory part is totally immoral, but the inclusion of the stage of gestation indicated to me that it was a relevant factor.

[Castle]

Couldn't edit a typo that is important.

"I'd like to restate that my opinion there is not the standard Objectivist argument, as far as I know."

Should be. I'd like to restate that the above opinion is not the standard Objectivist argument, as far as I know.

[Marc K.]

Using only birth as a criteria seems off base if the exact same being is there before. Another possible criteria that seems relevant is viability of the fetus outside the womb.

Both of these objections have been covered in the very lengthy, existing, thread on abortion.

I don't see how they can be defended rationally, if you take the principle of individual rights seriously.

Birth is what creates an individual being. Before birth a "being" doesn't exist.

Viability is a criterion that changes with the advancement of technology.

Taken together your two sentences, if enacted in law, would expose the mother to forced surgery.

[Castle]

"I don't see how they can be defended rationally, if you take the principle of individual rights seriously."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/argument...timidation.html

"Birth is what creates an individual being. Before birth a "being" doesn't exist."

Yes, and if for some reason the female waits too long, removing a fetus that is then capable of surviving is essentially a birth. I'm not referring to the "it could have become a person" fallacy. There is a point where removing the fetus from the female would just be a premature birth. It seems a worthwhile thing to research.

"Viability is a criterion that changes with the advancement of technology. "

Am I to infer that you are saying advances in technology shouldn't have any sort of influence on ethics and morality? Just ignore any future data or technology? I also doubt that this has greatly changed. The embryo is just cells for quite a while, and for a while after that just a vaguely man shaped mass that would immediately expire upon removal. Thats nothing like a very late term fetus. Any Objectivist writing I could find refers to the cell or embryo phase of gestation, not say a ninth month pregnancy.

"Taken together your two sentences, if enacted in law, would expose the mother to forced surgery."

No principle I've presented for debate forces anyone to do anything, and I'm not entrenched in them, I'm discussing potential views. If a principle was validated that led to the determination that abortions up to a certain month are ethical, but not after or changed our understanding of which procedures are ethical it wouldn't be forcing anything on anyone. Determining that the procedure to achieve a certain result must be done a certain way at a certain time isn't "force" against someone who desires the procedure.

[Marc K.]

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/argument...timidation.html

This is completely absurd. Did you even read the entry you cited?

You need to develop a thicker skin. If you consider telling someone they're wrong and then giving the reasons why to be argument from intimidation, then this may not be the place for you.

There is a point where removing the fetus from the female would just be a premature birth. It seems a worthwhile thing to research.

If she consents, then you may remove it. If she doesn't consent, then you may not force her. That would be a violation of her rights.

Am I to infer that you are saying advances in technology shouldn't have any sort of influence on ethics and morality?

Well its hard to predict the future. I suppose if we get to the Star Trek phase where a fetus can be molecularly transported out of the mother without any effect on her we might have something to talk about. Even there I should think you would need her consent. And certainly any procedure which involves surgery would require her consent.

No principle I've presented for debate forces anyone to do anything,

That's why I said "if enacted in law". If you just want to talk about ethics and not politics, and if you are only arguing for your right to call a woman who has a late term abortion "immoral", then while I might disagree with you, I would defend your right to say such a thing.

Usually though, when abortion is the topic of discussion, we are discussing the woman's rights with respect to the unborn fetus.

If a principle was validated that led to the determination that abortions up to a certain month are ethical, but not after or changed our understanding of which procedures are ethical it wouldn't be forcing anything on anyone.

The ethics of the situation must address the woman's rights and I cannot imagine a situation in which the rights of the woman are abrogated in favor of the fetus.

Determining that the procedure to achieve a certain result must be done a certain way at a certain time isn't "force" against someone who desires the procedure.

OK, well, I'm not in favor of forced human incubation either.

[TheAllotrope]

If she consents, then you may remove it. If she doesn't consent, then you may not force her.

Since we ARE talking abortion here, and partial birth abortion specifically given the stage of pregnancy this refers to, what exactly is the difference between delivering the baby and giving it up for adoption and just ripping it apart in place, then removing it? Seems to me like the former would be healthier for the woman at the very least, and I can't imagine it being hugely more expensive for the woman, especially since the adoptive parents would presumably be willing to pick up the tab. Whose rights are violated in such a situation?

Also the Lexicon has, under abortion,

One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.

The first clause clearly indicates that the issue is debatable regarding later pregnancies, quite possibly due to the recurring viability issue. The state of medical science was far more primitive when the Lexicon entry was written (1968) than today's, so I think this issue deserves more than a "birth is the border between birth and nothingness, next topic!" I mean, what about the partial birth abortion, which involves half delivering a viable baby and then vacuuming out its brain? By the time someone is getting a partial birth abortion, they've had plenty of time to consider whether it's wanted or not, and its perfectly viable.

[Marc K.]

Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 so I think what Ayn Rand was referring to (if it was in 1968) by "but the essential issue concerns only the first three months" was the fact that abortion was illegal and the fact that most abortions are performed in the first trimester.

Here is more of what the Lexicon has:

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

Since we ARE talking abortion here, and partial birth abortion specifically given the stage of pregnancy this refers to, what exactly is the difference between delivering the baby and giving it up for adoption and just ripping it apart in place, then removing it? Seems to me like the former would be healthier for the woman at the very least, and I can't imagine it being hugely more expensive for the woman, especially since the adoptive parents would presumably be willing to pick up the tab. Whose rights are violated in such a situation?

This isn't really the way it usually works. Rarely are adoptive parents found before birth and even more rarely are they willing to pick up the tab.

And if the mother is forced into surgery or into continued incubation, then clearly her rights are being violated

The first clause clearly indicates that the issue is debatable regarding later pregnancies, quite possibly due to the recurring viability issue. The state of medical science was far more primitive when the Lexicon entry was written (1968) than today's, so I think this issue deserves more than a "birth is the border between birth and nothingness, next topic!" I mean, what about the partial birth abortion, which involves half delivering a viable baby and then vacuuming out its brain? By the time someone is getting a partial birth abortion, they've had plenty of time to consider whether it's wanted or not, and its perfectly viable.

Late term abortions are rare and doctors that perform them are very rare but you can imagine many scenarios in which one might be necessary, such as: the health of the mother is in jeopardy, a congenital defect is discovered, the father is killed or leaves and the mother doesn't want to continue ... etc. etc. etc.

This is a very personal decision, a decision that should be left to the judgement of the woman and her doctor. Do you think that someone else's judgement should be involved? Even if the decision is made on the basis that the woman just doesn't want to continue the pregnancy, should that decision be overridden and the woman's rights denied in favor a potential life?

As to viability, if we use that as the deciding criterion, then you can definitely imagine that not to far into the future an embryo will be viable outside the womb using some new technology. What then? Forced surgery to remove unwanted embryos within the first trimester?

And I wasn't trying to cut off debate it is just that this ground has been covered before in a 55 page thread here

The issue is settled in my mind and I have stated my reasons but if you are unsure, please continue. Maybe the other thread has covered the issues you have.

Edit to add last paragraph

Edited October 12, 2009 by Marc K.